 |
|
| Kathmandu, Friday March 21, 2003 Chaitra 07, 2059. |
|
Who will rescue Doha Round ?
By RATNAKAR ADHIKARI
Proponents of ‘Bicycle Theory of Trade
Liberalisation’ argue that trade liberalisation is like a bicycle – it maintains
balance as long as the rider is peddling and collapses as soon as it stops. Impressed by
the underlying philosophy behind this theory and at the insistence of some of the rich and
powerful members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), trade ministers of 142 member
countries of the WTO launched the Doha Round of trade negotiations at Doha, Qatar in
November 2003, at the conclusion of the fourth ministerial conference of the WTO.
This round, which was called the Doha
Development Agenda, was hailed as a major achievement by the developing countries then.
However, all that they claimed to have received at Doha was nothing more than what they
deserved from the unequal multilateral trading system, hitherto dominated by the rich and
powerful countries. Doha Declaration included a number of lofty objectives in its preamble
and promised heavens for the developing countries.
Seventeen good months have passed since, but the
progress on achieving the objectives mentioned in the Declaration has been glacially slow.
In five months time, ministers are meeting once again in Cancun, Mexico for the fifth
Ministerial Conference of the WTO. Looking at the progress achieved so far, it is
suspected that Cancun conference too will turn into another fiasco as happened in the
third ministerial conference of the WTO held in Seattle in November-December 1999. There
are several reasons for such skepticism.
Readers would recall that the developing member
countries of the WTO were not prepared to launch a new round of multilateral trade
negotiations at all. However, they were cajoled into agreeing to the proposition by the
developed countries. One of the major demands of the developing countries was to address
the implementation issues and concerns. Developed countries managed to pacify the
developing countries by annexing a Declaration on Implementation Related Issues and
Concerns to the Doha Declaration. However, as time passes by, there is a growing
realisation among the developing countries that developed countries never had any
intention to fulfill the commitments made therein. The latter ones are clearly reneging on
their commitment and the deadlines set for the negotiations on this issue has been missed
twice.
Liberalisation of agriculture was another
contentious issue. Despite the push being made by the Cairns Group, a group of agriculture
products exporting countries, the European Union (EU) and Japan are blocking progress
aimed at liberalisation of this sector. The EU dismissed a draft proposal prepared by
Stuart Harbinson, the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture as going too far. Japan
mentioned that the proposal was a "catalyst". The ministers of 22 countries
gathered in Tokyo for mini-ministerial on 14-16 February failed to agree even to the
"broad outline" of agricultural negotiations. With the pace at which agriculture
negotiations are moving forward, it is most likely that the March end deadline set for
this issue as per Doha mandate will be missed.
Another issue that occupied the attention of the
global community is that relating to public health. Realising the growing pressure from
the civil society organisations (CSOs), around the world the ministers had also agreed to
annex another declaration titled Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, which essentially
interpreted the provision on compulsory licensing contained in Article 31 (f) of TRIPS
Agreement. While doing so, the Declaration made it clear that any member country of the
WTO has a right to knock off patents on pharmaceutical products on public health grounds.
However, it was not clear as to how the
countries without domestic manufacturing capacity would take its advantage. Therefore, it
was decided that TRIPS Council should find an expeditious solution to this problem by the
end of December 2002. However, despite a series of extensive debates on this issue, the
issue could not be resolved because the proposal which was acceptable to 143 country was
not agreeable to one country – the US, which remained singularly opposed to the
proposal. By opposing an amicable settlement to this problem, the US is in effect reneging
on its commitment made at Doha. The reason for the hardened stance of the US, which was
hidden until now, is coming to the fore.
As revealed by George Monbiot (The Guardian,
February 25, 2003), the Republicans’ victory in the mid-term elections last November
was secured with the help of US$ 60 million from America’s big drug firms. This
appears to have been a straightforward deal: we will buy the elections for you if you
abandon the concession you made in Doha.
The only achievement made by the WTO member
countries Post-Doha is that the special session of the Council for Trade in Services (CTS)
approved modalities for the treatment of autonomous liberalisation on March 6, 2003. As
per this agreement, WTO member countries would be ‘credited’ for autonomous
liberalisation measures they have taken unilaterally or at the insistence of the Bretton
Woods Institutions (The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank). This effectively
means that such members would not be required to make reciprocal commitments, when other
members make similar commitments.
This new agreement on modalities for autonomous
liberalisation entails a sign of momentum at a time when WTO negotiations in most areas
are stalling. It is being felt that services negotiations can function as the engine of
the Doha Round, and WTO Director General (DG) Supachai Panitchpakdi was quick to point out
that this agreement should inject new dynamism not only in the services negotiations but
also in other areas of the Doha agenda.
However, observers, including this columnist,
who are closely following the negotiations in Geneva, do not share this optimism. It is
clear that the progress on implementation issues, agriculture, and public health areas
will determine the progress in other areas of trade liberalisation. Developing countries
are bound to be apathetic to the new proposals on liberalisation of other sectors or
issues such as competition, investment, trade facilitations, transparency in government
procurement – the so-called Singapore issues – if the developed countries do not
even fulfill the bare minimum commitments they made at Doha. The looming gridlock which
has paralysed the global trade talks can only be cleared by the rich and powerful
countries – led by the US and EU. They need to exhibit a sense of responsibility in
order to prevent the repeat of Seattle and collapse of the multilateral trading order.
Other Stories
|
