The Challenge of the WTO: Rethinking Strategies-2
A host of negative
information was cited to challenge the thesis that globalization was good for all: Why
should developed countries deny market access to imports from least developed countries,
LDCs, when such imports accounted for barely 0.5% of total world trade? How was it that
447 billionaire now have wealth greater than the income of one-half of humanity? How does
one explain that around 100 multinational corporations control one-fifth of all foreign
owned assets in the world and that five corporations now market between 60% to 90% of all
wheat, maize and rice and just three corporations now market 83% of trade in cocoa? If the
system was to benefit all countries, how it is that the poorest 20% in the world shared
just 1 percent of global gross domestic product, GDP?
In a recent article,
Robert Wade of the London School of Economics found concluded that richer countries had
indeed grown richer and the inequalities had increased significantly. All this lends a
certain degree of sobriety in what is purported to be ‘the gains of trade
liberalization’.
This would suggest that
the debate as to what globalization is and what globalization does has not yet been
conclusively resolved. There is, in other words, no consensus that greater economic
prosperity and enhanced human welfare would be a natural consequence of trade
liberalization and the integration of national economies into the world economy. Indeed,
it is argued by some that that the opposite would, in fact, occur and that poorer
countries would be further marginalised. In other words, that globalization would succeed
only in concentrating wealth in the hands of the already rich and result in the increase
of poverty in the majority of the world’s population, coupled with unsustainable
patterns of production and consumption. The 1999 Human Development Report of the UNDP
emphatically cautions against the unequal and inequitable spread of the opportunities and
rewards of globalization as it would result in concentrating power and wealth in a select
group of people, nations and corporations, marginalising the others.
Dismissing the fears
and concerns of the poorer economies, as being exaggerated and misplaced, is no longer
therefore an option. Developed countries have recognized that they need at least to be
seen as addressing developing country concerns, if the global trading system is not to be
irreparably damaged. This would suggest a candid assessment of globalization itself to
ascertain why there is a loss of confidence among the developing countries and what,
therefore, needs to be done.
The anti-globalization
sentiment in developing countries appears essentially to be based on the belief that
globalization, as it is being advocated today, places excessive emphasis on trade
liberalization as a development strategy. The ‘core’ concern of developing
countries appears to be that trade liberalization per se can not improve human welfare.
Such an argument would suggest that if issues such as development cooperation, technology
and resource transfer, special provisions for developing countries etc are relegated to
the background or ignored, it is because the global trading system is based in favor of
the richer and the more powerful economies. Put simple, developing countries appear to be
arguing that the current philosophy of globalization does not put human beings at the
center. In other words, unless globalization has a human face, it can’t succeed, as
it would not find acceptance among the poorer and weaker nations in the world. Trade
liberalization can’t, therefore, be the sole variable to characterize globalization.
This suggest that
unless the development paradigm of globalization consciously addresses poverty, which is
the core concern of developing countries, the efficient functioning of the global trading
system will be seriously jeopardized. This is principally because developing countries may
no longer feel convinced of the gains of globalization. Negotiations either at Geneva or
at venues of Ministerial Conferences would be reduced to platforms for rhetoric, which
would split the global relationship along distinct North-South lines. Clear battle lines
would be drawn up since the relationship would be based on mistrust and on confrontation,
and therefore, not contribute towards strengthening the global trading system. Recognizing
and addressing the ‘core’ concerns of developing countries are, therefore,
critical.
The Myth of Development
and the Denial of Market Access: The argument that liberalisation would automatically
result in high economic performance and growth and thus, lead to poverty alleviation and
development was compelling enough for developing countries to endorse the URN that
culminated in the creation of WTO. Today, the is widespread support that the negotiations
were loaded in favor of the developed countries and that it is fair comment to make that
the URN were unfair and unbalanced. However, correcting the anomalies meant re-opening the
Agreements already entered into and the developed countries took the ‘legal’
stance that this might only be possible if they were compensated in some form through the
introduction of new issues and further market liberalization. Already disadvantaged, the
poor countries were left with the little, if any, negotiating maneuverability.
The URN however did go
a major step forward in integrating agriculture, textiles and clothing into the
Multilateral Trading System. Special and differential treatment was also integrated into
the Agreements and there was a general sense of optimism among developing countries who
felt that these would result in greater market access. Indeed, the Preamble to the
Agreement categorically recognizes the development dimension by acknowledging "that
there is need for positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries, and
especially the least developed among them, secure a share in the growth in international
trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development.
This was a course of a
major departure from GATT where for 50 years of its existence, the development dimension
was never integrated into the Agreement, despite GATT 1947 having a full section devoted
to trade and development. It spoke of raising standards of living and progressive
development of contracting states but hardly any developing economies experienced
‘development’ under the GATT regime. There is now fear that the Uruguay Round
Agreements, URA or the WTO would go the same way. This is principally because the URA
suffers from inherent and inherited asymmetries and an in-built developed country driven
bias.
Since the development
dimension is linked to trade and trade in turn is linked to market access, it is pertinent
to briefly scan the market access story. In this regard, developed countries have created
a series of barriers, some highly ingenious and innovative, and others reasonably
predictable. For developing countries the main strength lies in low wage costs. This is
reflected in a number of sectors such as textiles and garments, footwear, etc. However,
market access is today being denied through the invocation of non-tariff measures. These
range from labor standard, or the social clause, at one level to environmental standards
on the other. In other words, non-trade issues are drawn into the trade agenda to deny
market access.
Today, labor standards
is likely to emerge as one of the principal non-tariff barriers to trade, second only to
perhaps to environmental standards which is also being invoked by developed countries.
This is of course notwithstanding the fact that maximum devastation and degradation to the
environment has been caused by the developed countries, whether in terms of ozone
depletion, global warming or the dumping of hazardous wastes.
Furthermore, in the
textiles and the clothing sector, developed countries have been exceedingly slow in
eliminating quota restrictions. By June 2000, the US has only eliminated only 13 out of
750 quota restrictions; the EU 14 out of 219 and Canada 29 out of 295. Liberalization of
the textiles sector continues therefore to be slow and sluggish. The story is much the
same with regard to agriculture which continues to be adamantly protected by the developed
countries. However, in this particular area what is perhaps heartening for the developing
countries is that the developed countries do not have a common position and fissures are
now clearly visible.
As regards agriculture,
the subject of food security is of particular relevance for developing countries. They
have argued that it needs to be seen as a non-trade concern and should be set as a goal in
itself. This suggests that countries need to concentrate on their domestic production
capabilities for securing assured supplies of food grain. Trade can not therefore be made
the singular basis for policy making in the agriculture sector and if it is it would
seriously undermine the domestic production of food grain. Food security constitutes in
fact, one of the core concerns of all developing countries.
To be continued.
China
and Germany equally represented at the "Reality Film Festival"
-Veronique Vellard,
France
The 24th edition of the
<<Reality Film Festival >>, showing ethnographic and sociological films, is
being held at the Pompidou Centre in Paris from 8th to 17th March 2002. Apart from the
French entries, presenting 20 films, the retrospective brings together the Czech Republic
and Slovakia, on the big screen. The international part of the competition includes 22
countries. Two of them, china and Germany, which are very different in their economic and
social realities, are equally represented.
<<This year,
china is no longer hiding>>, Suzette Glenadel, the festival’s organiser tells
us. The country is very well represented with three films in the competition. <<A
new generation, resulting from the Tien-an – men uprising, has decided to film
reality. Some of the film –makers work for television and so benefit from adequate
material conditions to produce their documentaries independently>>. Without any
prudery or voyeurism, Zhang Zhanquing, the maker of <<when the city meets the
country>>, shows the emigration of a peasant from the province of Anhui to Peking,
who became a bicycle- rickshaw driver to prepare a better future for his family. Childhood
is a recurring theme. With<< Snow on the Yili>>, Lei Feng filmsa little
girl’s view of the life of the Kazakhs in Xinjiang. Since 1989, the Yamagata festival
in Japan allows film- makers to see foreign movies and to enrich the quality of their
documentaries>>, the organiser continues. In << The Railway of Hope>>,
the woman film- maker Ning Ying places her cameras aboard trains packed with peasants from
the province of Sichuan. With them, she travels for 56 hours as far as Xinjiang where they
will pick cotton for four months so as to feed their families and send their children to
school the rest of the year.
Although china openly
shows its difficulties, its dynamism projects it onto a level with Germany which also
present three films in the competition. <<The importance and quality of its
documentaries reflect the good health of its production>>, Suzette Glenadel
maintains. This year, Germany looks abroad.<<Duka’s Dilemma>> (by Jean
Lydall and Kaira Streker) shows the life of two Ethiopian co- wives in the land of Hamar.
In << Closely controlled station>>, Babette Koci films the routine and dreams
of two station workers. Finally <<Mirabella- Sindelfingen and return>> (by
Andreas Pichler ) follows some Italian immigrant workers in the bus journey taking them
from Sicily to their factory in Germany.
The retrospective of
the Czech and Slovak Republics provides the opportunity to give an account of the
upheavals of the history of these two countries through 50 films made between 1928 and
2000.Between the death of the student Jan Palach, who set fire to himself to protest
against the soviet occupation, and the new start in life of families which had once again
become the owner of their land, the public will also be able to enjoy more light-hearted
film such as those propaganda shorts chosen for their comic side more than for their
message.
In all, 32 films are
involved in the competition presented by 22 countries from Europe, Asia, Oceanic and South
America. For the selection, Suzette Glenadel admits to <<giving priority to the
point of view of the author and to writing for the cinema. There are no documentaries made
in a hurry>>. The five members of the international jury this year include Michel
Khleifi, a Palestinian filmmaker, and Abderrahmane Sissako, a Maurician filmmaker. 8,000
euros (6,982 USD) will be awarded to the winner of the big Reality Film Prize. The Louis
Marcorelles prize will be awarded by the Ministry of Foreign affairs to the director of a
French film.Some film maker won fame thanks to the festival (such as Mira Nair (India),
Claire Simon (France) and Jaco Van Dormael (Belgium), the festival has won its
international reputation thanks to the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which
buys and shows some of the documentaries in French cultural centers.
The festival is open to
all kinds of public and <<provides the opportunity to see films, which will never be
shown anywhere else. It also allows the public to rediscovers events or to inform young
people who do not know the reality and the history of a people>>. Speaking of the
countries present in the festival, Suzette Glenadel admits, with passion, <<Even if
I took a liking to Iran, I am, above all, a great traveller who is very interested in
people. Everywhere where I went to select films, I met remarkable people. The cinema
brings people together. >> This passion is shared by filmmakers and personalities
who, this year again, will come to chair round- tables with the public. |
