Recommendations of a regional seminar “From Seattle Ministerial to UNCTAD-X: Issues of Concern”

RECOMMENDATIONS OF REGIONAL SEMINAR

“From Seattle Ministerial to UNCTAD-X: Issues of Concern”,

New Delhi, January 22-23, 2000

I. Introduction

1.1 Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS) and South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics & Environment (SAWTEE) organised a Regional Seminar: “From Seattle Ministerial to UNCTAD-X: Issues of Concern” at New Delhi during January 22-23, 2000. Civil society groups from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, had assembled in New Delhi to discuss their concerns for being reflected at the ensuing meeting of the UNCTAD-X at Bangkok on February 12-19, 2000. It was part of a wider regional civil society consultation being organised by UNCTAD to help it by providing inputs for the UNCTAD-X.

1.2 Considering the fact that UNCTAD X is going to be the first international meeting on economic issues soon after the aborted Seattle Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the seminar assumed greater significance. Participants welcomed the theme of the UNCTAD-X: “Developmental Strategies in an increasingly interdependent world: applying the lessons of the past to make globalisation an effective instrument for the development of all countries and all people”. To reflect the people-oriented objectives of this meet, it is also being termed as the “World Parliament on Globalisation”,

1.3 The following are a set of recommendations that have been unanimously accepted by this meeting, reflecting their concerns on:

These need to be vigorously pursued not only at the UNCTAD-X, but also on other civil society platforms and international fora in times to come. The final set of recommendations provides broad suggestions that would help UNCTAD regain its lost status in the area of coordination and decision making.

II. Globalisation

2.1 Experiences of countries that have embarked on the path of globalisation and liberalisation show that these processes should not only address broad macro-concerns of a country but concerns of people at large. Otherwise such efforts only lead to accelerated marginalisation of the poor whilst creating islands of prosperity.

2.2 The lessons also reflect that one of the key requirements for dodging these negative impacts, is to complement domestic institutional reforms with measures that can change the attitude and functioning of international institutions and influential nations vis-à-vis problems of countries in the area of finance, trade, aid, standards, intellectual property, technology transfer, et al.

2.3 Also important is the pace at which institutional reforms are implemented at national and international level. Slackening of pace not only affects the timeliness of responses, which are meant to meet the challenges thrown up by new economic structures, but also results in affecting the quality of policy effectiveness associated with these reforms.

2.4 The above is important to make markets work in the era of globalisation. Timely and apposite institutional reforms at the national and international levels would not allow larger economic entities to use their financial muscle power for engaging in market-distortionary or restrictive practices. This would therefore help preserve competition and assist smaller players effectively integrate in the global market.

2.5 Last but not the least there is a growing realisation that globalisation will have to be effectively managed and shaped to help the peoples of both strong and weak countries reap benefits associated with it. Lack of efforts in this direction, would deprive, especially weaker sections from opportunities for raising living standards thereby increasing their apathy towards globalisation and liberalisation. Globalisation would therefore stand to lose legitimacy.

2.6 The following recommendations made to UNCTAD-X, are on the basis of the observations made above:

III. Market access issues with a special emphasis on non-tariff measures

3.1 Although tariffication of non-tariff measures is one of the central principles on the basis of which the new trading system is being built under the aegis of the WTO, one finds that non-tariff measures in the form of ‘Rules’ such as anti-dumping and ‘Standards’ such as sanitary and phytosanitary measures, technical barriers to trade et al are impacting market access.

3.2 Realising the futility of tariff-based instruments to protect the interest of domestic interest groups in the post-GATT (1994)/WTO era, (except in the area where tariff peaks exist) countries have started using non-tariff Rules- or Standards-based measures in a big way to serve protectionist demands. This has not allowed exporting countries from the developing world to translate their comparative advantage in the trade of specific commodities and services into competitive advantage.

3.3 In addition to this developing countries have been continuously voicing their concern on how developed countries have not been implementing negotiated agreements in their true spirit.

3.4 Agreements like the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and the Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) have provided a precedent for introduction of ‘trade related’ issues under the ambit of multilateral trading system. It is also noteworthy that nearly 70 countries have not been able to implement their commitments under the TRIPs agreement, while a similar problem exists for the TRIMs agreement.

3.5 Efforts are already on to overload the WTO in seeking to develop ‘effective’ linkages between trade and environmental issues, and trade and labour standards. The Seattle Ministerial Conference of the WTO has shown how these issues are being flouted for domestic political agendas.

3.6 It is important to note that even though civil society across nations is united in its opposition to inclusion of intellectual property or investment in the mainstream of WTO discussions, it is a divided house on issues pertaining to the linkages between trade and its environment, and trade and labour standards. In fact there exists a sizeable section of civil society, both in the North and the South that strongly believes that such kind of ‘linkages’ would only accentuate protectionism rather than solve problems if they are discussed on a sanctions-based platform like the WTO.

3.7 More so, these sections of civil society are also worried about proposals aiming to establish Working Groups outside the WTO to discuss such issues, as they opine that this could be a precursor to a legitimate entry of such issues in the mainstream of WTO debates.

3.8 Given these broad concerns, the following was recommended:

IV. Decision making process at the WTO

4.1 What differentiates the WTO from the two Brettonwoods institutions is that every Member, irrespective of its trade share has one vote. Another important feature is the Dispute Settlement System of the WTO, which has been vested with powers to punish erring Members. The latter makes the Members more sensitive and cautious about the decision making process and the level of transparency associated with it, where as the former provides them an opportunity to exercise their influence on the decision making process without any diminution.

4.2 Increasing integration of the civil society in the process of international decision making has given a completely new flavour to issues pertaining to transparency, especially during dispute settlement. Witness the demands made by civil society groups associated with the amicus curiae briefs that were presented during the ‘shrimp-turtle’ case heard by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and the Appellate Body of the WTO. Some of the WTO members have expressed concerns about the ruling of the Appellate Body on the ‘shrimp-turtle’ case that does not object to civil society organisations from presenting their views before the DSB.

4.3 In the area of decision making one finds that countries, especially the poor ones, have been expressing serious concern about their ability to influence decision-making during Ministerial Meets. Furthermore many countries have been critical about the lack of democracy, that was seen to be perpetuated by adopting the ‘green room’ negotiation process during the Seattle Ministerial Conference.

4.4 One also comes across complaints about how WTO Members have misused the ‘consensus system’ of decision making to their benefit by blocking decisions with their single vote.

4.5 Given these broad concerns, the seminar has suggested further debate on the following elements that are expected to push decision making at the WTO in a direction towards achieving a better form of transparent and participatory democracy:

V. International Financial Architecture

5.1 The South East Asian financial crisis has highlighted serious anomalies in the international financial architecture. More so, the social, political and economic ramifications of this crisis have shaken the faith of people in the current financial architecture.

5.2 The magnitude of the crisis also reveals the price the world has to pay for allowing opaque organisations like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to carry out their functions without being accountable.

5.3 The above calls for the following steps to be initiated at UNCTAD-X:

VI. Some other broad recommendations