Driving LDCs’ concerns to logical conclusion

By RATNAKAR ADHIKARI

Despite resounding rhetoric, 49 poorest countries of the world, designated as least developed countries (LDCs), are being marginalised from the global trading system. Their collective share in the global trade has steadily fallen in the past five decades – from close to 3 percent in 1954 to 0.48 percent now. While unequal global trading system is partly responsible for this, lack of capacity of the LDCs to negotiate their terms is also considered a major impediment in reversing the trend of their marginalisation.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) system as such has the potential to ensure the integration of these poorest economies of the world in the global economy. Realising this potential, all the trade ministers of the LDCs met in Zanzibar in July 2001, for the first time, to prepare their common position for the WTO Ministerial Conference held in Doha in November 2001. However, they could not achieve a major breakthrough during the Doha Ministerial partly because of their tendency to splinter for narrow self-interests. They have realised that they had to pay dearly for their inability to project a cohesive front at the WTO Ministerial.

This led them to organise the second Ministerial Conference of the LDC Ministers in Dhaka from 31 May to 2 June 2003. Before the Conference began, a group of international civil society organisations (CSOs) organised a forum titled Advancing LDC Interests in the Fifth WTO Ministerial from 29 to 30 May 2003. The forum, co-organised, among others, by Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD) and South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics & Environment (SAWTEE) produced two documents. The first one was a priority list for the Cancun Ministerial Conference, which LDC Ministers should take into account and the second was a Declaration detailing the positions LDC Ministers should take at the Cancun Ministerial. These documents were officially handed over to the Trade Ministers’ Conference and they incorporated most of the suggestions made by CSOs in their final Declaration.

Though all the issues incorporated in the final Declaration are important from the trade and development perspective of the LDCs, it will not be possible to outline all the issues here due to space constraint. Therefore, this column will only focus on four major issues that are of critical significance to the LDCs.

The first major issue concerns market access. Due to the imposition of astronomical tariffs and quantitative restrictions by the developed countries on products of specific interests to the LDCs such as agriculture, textile and footware, LDCs have not been able to export these products to the developed countries’ market. Therefore, LDCs have been continuously demanding the provision of duty-free and quota free access to developed countries’ market. Responding to this need, the European Union (EU), Canada, Australia and New Zealand have already provided such facilities to the LDCs, a few other countries have been reluctant to follow suit. As per a study conducted by a group of World Bank professionals, LDCs’ export could increase by 11 percent if they are provided with zero tariff access to all the developed countries’ market.

It is therefore necessary for the LDCs not only to negotiate for the provision of duty-free and quota-free access of their products to all the developed countries’ markets, but also to ensure that such commitment is binding at the WTO. If such a provision is made without any legal enforceability at the WTO, developed countries could easily make policy reversal, thus, shattering the expectation of predictable market access.

The second major issue relates to unreasonably high standards imposed by the developed countries becoming dynamic hurdle in the process of enhancing the market access of the LDCs. Despite the existence of WTO Agreements on Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT), which are supposed to regulate the use of high standards without proper risk assessment and scientific justification, developed countries are imposing unrealistic standards on the imports of developing countries in general. These standards are impossible for LDCs to comply given their existing administrative, legal and institutional infrastructure.

Therefore, even if LDCs are provided with tariff and quota-free access, their market access prospects are still hampered by other non-tariff barriers such as standards and rules of origin requirements. The provision of relaxed or flexible rules of origin and standards are mandatory to improve trade prospects of the LDCs.

The third major issue is that of providing special and differential treatment (S&DT) to the LDCs. While an open-ended protectionism is a sure invitation to economic mismanagement as it results in inefficiency, breeds vested interest groups and creates rent-seeking behaviour, a temporary and time bound protection, which could credibly be phased out after the expiry of specified period, could be useful to bring weaker countries up to speed. This is the underlying principle of providing S&DT.

However, LDCs have remained highly sceptical about the S&DT provisions contained in various WTO Agreements because they have hardly been implemented, despite reassurance provided by the Doha Ministerial Declaration. Therefore, it is being suggested that a Framework Agreement on S&DT should be accepted during the Cancun Ministerial Conference. The S&DT Framework Agreement should, at the very least, establish that the implementation of obligations would be modulated according to the level of development of each country and reviewed periodically, taking into account not only per capita gross national product (GNP), and exports, but also development indices and goals.

The final issue that merits special consideration is the issue of technical assistance. This issue should be looked at from two angles. While the first relates to helping the LDCs implement the commitments they have made at the WTO, the second relates to addressing their supply side constraints. Given the fact that LDCs are resource strapped and they should not be asked to divert their funds from the social sector such as health and education to implement the WTO Agreements, fresh resources should come from somewhere.

Similarly, LDCs cannot take advantage of the market access opportunities if their supply side constraints (such as infrastructure, governance issues, etc.) are not addressed. They too cost money. It is the responsibility of the developed countries as well as Bretton Woods institutions to make resources available for both the purposes.

Taking a common position in a preparatory meeting is one thing, but sticking to the same, come what may, is an entirely different issue. The success of negotiation plan hinges more on the second issue rather than the first one. Let us hope that the past mistakes will guide the LDC Ministers to make an informed and mature decision during the Cancun Ministerial.

Of shapely curves

By SARITA BAHETY

As I delve down the memory lane I recall teachers and parents equally emphasising on the neatness of handwriting right from the childhood. Till date I can remember mummy sitting beside me, day after day to check whether or not her tiny girl was putting those alphabets in proper shape on the paper. She had her special instructions for writing each alphabet- "with proper curves and tails", she would stress. There used to be moments when she used to hold my hand and make me practice over and over to "write properly"- as she would say.

And what more when in the primary classes, there used to be a provision of awarding marks on the neatness of the answer sheet. So much so that, cursive writings and its similar forms were quite in rage. Believe it or not, "write one page daily" used to be a favourite holiday homework assigned by the teachers. And the initial part of the vacations would be taken away in order to finish this boring job (honestly speaking!) as soon as possible.

Indeed, those were the days when it really mattered pretty much as to how you wrote. And comparing handwriting of kids used to be a favorite pastime of parents. "Look how beautifully she writes", used to be occasional remark that one would hear when a peer would put her best artistic skills forward albeit taking eons to jot down just a few words!

Much to my amazement, during schooling, I found some friends who declared their expertise at analysing your future. While some read the lines of your palms and talked about the fortune that was linked with them, some took deep interest in deciphering what your writing actually revealed about your personality and likes. Slanted writing had its own meaning whereas running line of alphabets would mean some other attribute. Oddly enough, due to years of practice, I could manage to write in a variety of styles and hence they told me that I was a very unpredictable person!

Whatever be it, it was instilled in the students that time that handwriting did matter and sometimes people would go even further to declare that good work on the piece of answer sheet can fetch you more marks than your buddies—a clear case of having an upper edge. It is understandable that everyone likes clarity and the mood of examiner may be turned on by a legible and well-written answer. Reality is that what you write matters more than how skillfully the curvaceous bits are put on the paper. I have seen many of the students scoring brilliantly even though one would dismiss their writing as a crap.

Times gradually changed. As I graduated, I learnt the art of writing in abbreviations, for; taking notes is a Herculean task specially if you are in a technical field. Then came a time when the assignments would be submitted either in hard copy or on-line. Even the exams would be of objective questions type where in all you are required is to tick the correct option(s). No more fuss about messy writing and the art of writing is not as paramount as it used to be specially while taking exams.

Writing seems to be disappearing fast. Now e-mails are typed and so are the CVs. So in professional life, the only most often, that too hurriedly, scribbled thing - is your signature - a clumsy combination of countable characters! And then when in this fast moving era where jobs are done at the zap of a button, have people got time to write patiently? So the writing on the wall is – "Don’t get deceived by the looks, look for the substance!"

Making and de-making of Nepal’s politics

By VIJAY KUNWAR 

It took full seven days to find six more persons to make a team of seven in the council of ministers led by the newly appointed Prime Minister Surya Bahadur Thapa. However, his haunt for ministers from among the vibrant members of the main parties has not yielded any positive outcome so far. None of the agitating political parties that have taken to the streets against the action of King Gyanendra on October 4 seem to be partnering and cooperating with the Thapa-led government. And they have declared their plans continued non-cooperation from the very day Thapa was appointed as yet another caretaker chief executive of the non-functional politico-economy of Nepal.

Not surprisingly, all of the parties on the streets have analysed the nature of the new government being similar to that of Lokendra Bahadur Chand, who said after his resignation on May 30 that he "did not like to waste the valuable time of the country by sticking to the post." Maoist boss Prachanda has also kept his pace mixing his voice in the chorus of the mainstream parties aloud in labelling the Thapa government being merely the opposite side of the same coin. This reference was in tune with the voice of NC President GP Koirala who compared Thapa with the "same old wine in a new bottle."

Some of the political analysts and sympathizers of the movement against the Royal move of October have opined that the primary reason behind the exit of Chand was an integral part of the architecture the Narayanhity Royal Palace designed to quell the ongoing movement of the parties in the dissolved house. A few even speak in much quieter tones that there may never be any elections to the parliament, at least in the near years to come. Instead, they predict a revival of the period during 1950 to 1960, when despite the advent of party politics, general elections were simply not held for about ten years after the downfall of the Rana oligarchy. As a result, about half a dozen governments, some lasting a brief period of less than six months, were experimented.

It is also not surprising that with the formation of the Thapa cabinet, its deformation has also begun simultaneously. That too from within the very Rastriya Prajatantra Party that belongs also to Thapa, who has been its president for the last ten years or more. Its new president PPS Rana had wished for the party’s go- ahead -mandate to form a government in the parliamentary form of democratic system. Thapa instead says that the selection of ministers is and should always be the prerogative of the Prime Minister himself.

One does not need any outsider to destabilize the Thapa government. There are enough hunger stricken politicians prowling from within the RPP to topple their own government. And, to freshen our memories we may have to go back to the period of the second parliament after 1990 that has witnessed many making and de-making of short-lived governments. With the downfall of the minority government led by UML’s Man Mohan Adhikary RPP had toppled its own governments, one led by Chand and the other led by Thapa. The trendsetter guru was, of course, the Nepali Congress. The government of Nepali Congress led by Sher Bahadur Deuba was dismantled by NC’s own lawmakers who chose to abstain from the hung House of Representatives at the time of voting on a "motion of confidence" proposed by the ruling PM, Deuba himself.

This time the way Thapa was appointed, many analysts smell a rat in the whole process itself. There have been reports in the Nepali press of the hectic and maneuvering activities of one diplomat and a think -tank on Nepal affairs from the southern neighbour. They had "advised" for the selection of Thapa, who they thought could settle, in the first place, the country’s seven-year-old Maoist insurgency and bring the nation back on the path of peace, constitutional process and a long lasting stability. These charges, though, have already been refuted by the institutional representative through an in-depth interview published by this daily on June 11. The vocal diplomat has repeated India’s stance in favour of the two pillars of Nepal; ie, constitutional monarchy and multi-party democracy.

To the dismay of some politicians, who always longed for the blessings of the players from the near and dear neighbour were surprised to hear from Indian Prime Minister. PM Atal Behari Vajpayee was in a hurry this time to congratulate the new Prime Minister on the second day Thapa assumed the premiership of this ailing country. Vajpayee had wished Thapa could take the turn of events on the right direction when Nepal was facing most troubled times. This message has served as a sarcasm to many who were looking upon with their preoccupied presumptions as they had had during the dying days of the Panchayat regime when India had put a trade embargo that paralysed Nepal’s economy vis-a-vis the struggle against the partyless Panchayat polity and the "movement for the restoration of multi-party democracy."

But at the same time, there are still a few, those specifically siding with the agitation of the mainstream parties, who again sniff a paradigm shift in the policy of the southern establishments towards Nepal. Most of them for their assumptions believed that the Indian national daily The Times of India (TOI) represented the official version of the South Block. The TOI has in the recent days after Chand’s departure allotted enough space for Nepal. They were particularly pointing towards the two sub-heads published by the TOI dated June 3, beneath its editorial column. One of the titles under "View" read, "Democracy is alive and well in Nepal". And the other under "Counter-View" read, " Monarchy is answer to Kathmandu’s problems". The latter explained, with a few reasons for such stern steps, "As things stand, the only institution capable of ensuing that today seem to be the monarchy. So perhaps the only sensible course of action is to scrap the experiment with democracy, and return to a full-fledged monarchy, till Nepal gets back into its feet. After all, desperate situations call for extreme measures." The unnamed author further writes concluding, "... that may be against the international trend towards democracy. But in which other country are Maoists a significant political force? Nepal’s plight is unique, its solution too must be indigenous." The counter viewpoint at the same time expressed that, "Nepal is a country blessed with corrupt, short-sighted politicians".

This apprehension seems to have put the major parties that are reluctant to join the Thapa team in a dilemma of confusion. The questions are: have they really lost the "faith and blessings" of the immediate South? And will the parties give a second thought to joining hands with Thapa? As is evident from the communique of the Royal Palace the Thapa government has been handed over the full executive powers which the King had once taken for himself. And the proponent this time has the face of Surya Bahadur Thapa.