The Challenge of the WTO:
Rethinking Strategies-3
Yet another area of denial of market access
is through sanitary and phytosanitary, SPS, measures. The application of stringent
specifications has acted as a severe deterrent to export to those countries. At the same
time, there is no uniformity whatsoever in these standards. For instance, only 15
countries are allowed to export fresh, chilled or frozen paultry meat to the EU, 5 may
export to the US, one to Canada and none to Australia. The only justification for such
widely differing standards adopted by developed countries is selectively in market access.
For developing countries therefore the URA
offered little benefit. The rapid growth of trade in the last 50 years saw growing
prosperity in the richer countries accompanied by growing poverty in the poorer countries.
In this regard, two facts are worth mentioning Firstly, the so-called Development Agenda
and secondly, the Doha Ministerial Declaration. The Director-General of the WTO has
repeatedly announced that the real success of Doha lay in taking note of the concerns of
the developing countries and in this connection he talks of Doha being a Development
Round. Following Doha, the WTO has embarked upon a major exercise and created the
Technical Cooperation Division. Development is now equated with training and capacity
building which is imparted through a series of seminars and workshops. Notwithstanding its
importance, it would be somewhat unprofessional to believe that training results in
development. Furthermore, para 16 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration is on market access
for non-agricultural products, which is of primary interest to the developing countries.
Progress in this particular subject is nil to date as no developed country is interested
in the same. Progress on other subjects, which are of interest to the developed countries,
is however being accelerated so that negotiations may take place in the Fifth WTO
Ministerial Conference in Mexico. The story therefore, remains the same: the poor remain
marginalised.
Interestingly, the definition of what
constitutes 'development' is now being questioned. The Doha Ministerial Meeting is
essentially being dubbed as a Development Round because one of the principal agreements
was that (para 38) "the Secretariat (was instructed), in coordination with other
relevant agencies, to support domestic efforts for mainstreaming trade into national plans
for economic development and strategies for poverty reduction. The delivery of WTO
technical assistance shall be designed to "assist developing and low-income countries
in transition to adjust to WTO rules and disciplines, implement obligations and exercise
the rights of membership, including drawing on the benefits of an open, rules-based
multilateral trading system". (Emphasis mine). Very clearly therefore,, what is
envisaged is that there would be a technical assistance programme and that technical
cooperation and capacity building can't be the sole instruments through which either
mainstreaming trade into national plans could be achieved or poor countries implement
obligations that arise which they need to fulfil so as to draw on the full benefits of
participating in the WTO system. The US Deputy Trade Representative is however questioning
this 'broad' definition of development which goes beyond training and capacity building.
The US position is that the WTO cannot and should not engage in technical assistance which
also embraces development aid. Many developed countries are likely to take such a position
and claim that there are other agencies like the UNDP or UNCTAD or the International Trade
Center, ITC, which is in a better position to undertake this responsibility. There is an
inherent contradiction however in this because if liberalised trade is not helping the
poor countries because they currently lack the wherewithal to derive this benefit, the
so-called development agenda needs to first address why the countries are not benefiting
and then, to assist in taking the corrective measures. This is likely to however increase
costs for the developed countries which have for some time now argued on the need to
decrease developmental aid and assistance or at least, to tie them with certain political
and other goals, which could be 'good governance', support for foreign policy, etc.
Handicapped Negotiating Skills and
Flexibility: Trade negotiations are never easy. Preparing for the negotiations is the
first task and there is almost always a wide gap between delegations on this score, for a
variety of reasons. This has been one of the principal reasons why developing countries
have not succeeded either in projecting their interests effectively or protecting these at
the negotiations.
Claims that the Multilateral Trading System
would result in enormous benefits for all through global trade liberalization enthused the
poorer countries, many of which saw it as a sort of fast track to economic prosperity.
This possibly explains, but does not justify, the fact that most developing country
delegations were not fully prepared at the time of the URN, which turned out, as some
skeptics argue as being GATTastrophic for the developing and the LDCs. However, at the
time of the Seattle Conference and its buildup in Geneva, the developing countries took a
far more activist role than in the previous GATT negotiations. While there was no common
South position or approach to the Seattle Conference, there was general agreement among
the developing countries that the URN was unbalanced, in that they imposed significant
obligations on the South without providing either sufficient rights or effective access to
the markets in the North. At Doha similarly, a like-minded group of countries comprising
developing countries regularly consulted and forged common positions but interestingly, at
Doha itself the group caved in to pressure from developed countries with India as the sole
country resisting the pressure. We will come to this later.
There exists considerable variation in the
level of understanding of the different WTO instruments and thus, of participation in the
negotiation process itself. This is understandable and may be attributed to a number of
reasons. First, not all developing countries have Embassies in Geneva and those that do,
do not have a separate and adequately manned Mission to the WTO. This results in the
Ambassador to WTO also being accredited to a whole host of other international
organizations located in Geneva, such as ILO, WHO, WMO etc. and thereby, imposes
considerable burden on the diplomatic personnel who are required to shuttle from one
meeting to another on subjects as wide-ranging as human rights to the Agreement on
Agriculture, AoA! As a result, the WTO does not receive the attention that it merits.
One of the principal reasons why poorer
countries are not in a position to man their Missions with the required number of
personnel is because of the prohibitive costs of locating persons in Geneva. Indeed, the
sost of posting a single person in Geneva are equivalent to a substantial percentage of
the developmental budget of many poorer countries. According to a recent study more than a
third of the non-resident countries have a per capita GDP of less than US$1 per day and
for some, it is around 50 Cents per day. More than the two-thirds of the non-residents
have an overall national income level at or below that. Most are therefore very small
economies, dependent on single or few commodity exports. Debt repayments-or where debt
relief has started recently, reallocation of funds to healthcare and education, comprise
major budget priorities. Furthermore, one man WTO Missions are not the solution since
developed countries invariably ensure that a series of Committee Meetings take place
simultaneously, forcing a choice to be made with regard to which meeting to attend. Such a
state of affairs is naturally not desirable.
The WTO along with other agencies is now
trying to address how this matter may be resolved. While this might appear to be a sound
and positive step to address the lacunae currently existing, there is need for caution and
vigilance. Simply having representation does not in any way guarantee that developing
country interests would be protected. Apart from negotiating skills, developing country
need the extra ability to be able to stand up to developed country tactics and pressure.
This has however not been realistically feasible so far. In Seattle for instance, the arms
twisting and bamboozling were blatant and shamelessly executed. At Doha itself, a new
element in the negotiating strategy was introduced: the telephone! Indeed,
"difficult" negotiators were plainly instructed by capitals to bend their knee.
Telephone calls were made to Heads of State or Government and protests lodged and even
threats (veiled or otherwise) issued, to ensure that delegations behaved. Clear trade offs
were part of the bargain and these very rarely had to do with the trade. Promises of
smooth talks on IMF loans and developmental assistance were made and in the immediate
short-run, Governments found these to be far more tangible benefits than objecting to
complex WTO obligations which in any case, they were in no position to fulfill. In such a
scenario, simply having resident Missions in Geneva or upgrading negotiating skills
vis-à-vis the WTO Agreements is not going to guarantee either development or the
protection of developing country interests.
To be continued.
30 years of French Doctors
-Anne Sophie Faullimel, France
From adventurous and romantic altruism to
lucid professionalism and from medical to sanitary aid to denunciatory testimonies, the
French doctors' organization Medecins Sans Frontiers, MSF-doctors without frontiers, has
come a long way since it was first created in 1971. It has naturally evolved towards
better efficiency and greater involvement in its interventions but has always remained
faithful to its initial mission, that of helping civilian populations which are the
victims of war, of natural catastrophes, of discrimination or simply of poverty, with
complete impartiality.
It was 1968 in the Gulf og Guinea, Nigeria
was in the throes of civil war. A young gastro-enterologist from Paris, Bernard Kouchner,
and a handful of other doctors including Max Recamier enrolled with the Red Cross and went
out to the province of Biafra. On the spot, the militant idealism guiding them became
tinged with a feeling of revolt on discovering the horror of the conflict and the silence
of the international community. They already regretted having signed the commitment of
non-interference demanded by the Red Cross. Back in France, Kouchner and Recamier gave
evidence of what they had seen in the medical weekly "Tonus", managed by Raymond
Borel. The idea of creating an independent organization capable of sending doctors to
sensitive areas in the world at any time was launched. The idea became a plan which
materialized. Medecins Sans Frontiers came into being on 20th December 1971 on the
newspapers's premises in Clichy, in the Paris suburbs, when a team had just returned from
East Pakistan, the scene of catastrophic flooding. Marcel Delcourt, a former army doctor
became its chairman. Kouchner was appointed secretary general. He was to be its chairman
from 1976 to 1977.
From the outset, the fact of taking action
and of speaking out seemed to be indissociable. However, the notion of testifying was
rather vague in 1971 and the majority of the founding members rejected the principle of
denunciation. So the 1971 Charter was clear on that point:; doctors "abstained from
publicly expressing an opinion"' and "denied themselves any interference in the
internal affairs of states". It was not until 1980, five years after the installation
of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia and the massive wave of refugees and boat people in the
Sea of China, that this principle was scrapped. They could give evidence and denounce if
need be, but had to remain faithful to the principle of neutrality, at all costs avoiding
amalgamation with politics, for a victim remains a victim whatever side he or she is on.
Kouchner's generous idea of chartering a ship
for Vietnam was rejected by the organization and led, in 1979, to the split in it and
sensational departure of its spiritual father. Far from allowing itself to be disbanded by
its intestine struggles, MSF recovered. It is true that, at the beginning of the 80s, the
question of the very survival of the association was posed. Rony Brauman, chairman from
1982 to 1994 remembers having to improvise in the early days and his experience in
Thailand in 1978. "In the middle of the mission, I found myself penniless. I had
nothing left to eat and I was fed by the refugees…". MSF became aware that this
amateurishness, while being spontaneous and devoted, could only hamper its efficiency. So
it gradually acquired means, techniques and professionals and accepted the collaboration
of advertising specialists.
It meant the end of impoverished budgets. In
the year 2000, MSF-France had a budget of 78.5 million euros, 91% of which came from
private donations. The background of volunteers has also considerably changed in thirty
years. Skilled work now accompanies the charitable intentions of the early years with more
specialists from the area of medicine and health as well as administrators and
logisticians. At present, there are about 2000 expatriated volunteers in 85 countries,
supported by 10,000 local volunteers. Today, MSF French doctors are an international
network made up of 18 sections including five operational centers: France, Belgium, Spain,
Holland and Switzerland.
Its area of action has been extended but
there are other fronts too. There are fears of members' being won over and manipulated.
"Humanitarian action, which long served to compensate for political passivity, today
seems to legitimize certain military interventions", Jean-Herve Bradol, the present
chairman regrets. In this context, MSF seeks to preserve its sovereignty of action,
attempts to maintain its credibility with civilian populations and hesitated to accept the
Nobel Prize for peace in 1999. It may indeed be proud but it firmly adheres to its initial
mission. |
