Al-Ahram Weekly | International

		Al-Ahram Weekly Online 15 - 21 November 2001 Issue No.560
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Current issue \| Previous issue \| Site map

Africa duped
What constitutes a trouble-free draft for the WTO ministerial meeting in Doha? Snubbing African concerns, says Tetteh Hormeku*

The draft ministerial declaration prepared by the chairman of the General Council of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) for the Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference has earned the reputation of being a "clean" text. That is to say, it is uncontentious. For African countries, however, this "clean" text constitutes a slap in the face.
Not surprisingly, representatives from developed nations have celebrated this "cleanliness," with the European Commission representative saying the draft is "clear, to the point, and avoids the mistake of pre-negotiation of its contents." But as trade experts in Geneva have pointed out, the text is so "clean" because it ignores the strong positions expressed by developing countries on key issues.
All the painstakingly specific demands made by African countries, both collectively and individually, to correct the damaging imbalances engendered by the Uruguay Round Agreements -- the WTO's predecessor -- have been virtually ignored. On the other hand, demands by developed countries for negotiation on new rules of investment, competition and government procurement enjoy pride of place in the text.
The draft supposedly emerged from consultations with all members of the WTO, so one would be forgiven for thinking that African positions were unheeded in the draft text due to the proverbial failure of Africans to stand up and be counted. Not so. This year alone, African representatives have spoken out collectively at the highest levels across the continent -- at ministerial meetings from Addis Ababa to Zanzibar, from Cairo to Abuja.
This chorus of concerns, however, was simply brushed aside in the draft declaration, which appears in two parts. The first part, the main draft declaration, contains the issues and programme for the future work of the WTO. The second part is a separate document, which addresses imbalances in the WTO partnership and states the difficulties of implementing the programmes focused on by African and other developing countries.
The first part of the declaration contains language signalling that the ministerial council attaches great importance to implementing programmes being pushed by the governments of the world's least developed countries (LDCs). But the main proposals for how to deal with the implementation problems appear in the separate, second document, with two annexes. These two annexes divide implementation issues into two sub- categories: those which require immediate action and those that should be subject to further negotiation during the ministerial.
The very fact of separating the implementation issues from the main text of the draft declaration runs the risk that these issues will be put on a separate, possibly slower, track. The issues of importance to the developed countries -- being part of the main declaration -- will be put on the fast track.
But it is in the substance of the proposals for addressing implementation problems where the draft declaration constitutes the gravest affront to the demands of African countries. With sweeping regularity, substantial proposals by African countries on dealing with sanitary measures, subsidies, the dumping of cheap agricultural products on developing countries and trade-related investment and intellectual property rights have all been left aside.
To begin with, there is the question of special and differential treatment (S&D). The Zanzibar declaration, adopted in July by LDC trade ministers, states the need to adopt new S&D measures to address the problems of LDCs with implementation of WTO programmes. For instance, under market access, the Zanzibar declaration states that existing S&D provisions should be improved to ensure that duty-free access is not nullified by non-tariff measures.
Also of considerable importance is the issue of trade-related investment measures (TRIMS) and trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS). According to the council chairman, members of the WTO are satisfied by action taken by the Council for Trade in Goods with regard to requests from some developing country members to extend the five-year transitional period to TRIMS. This falls far short of the straightforward demand of the LDCs as expressed in the Zanzibar declaration: that LDCs should altogether be exempted from the disciplines of TRIMS.
But the case of TRIPS is the most glaring example of the marginalisation of the positions of developing countries. The Zanzibar declaration called for the implementation of all provisions dealing with technology transfer and access to medicines, stating that essential drugs listed by the World Health Organisation should be excluded from patentability. The LDCs further demand that TRIPS should clarify that plants, animals and parts thereof, including gene sequences and biological processes for the production of plants, animals and their parts, be exempted from patentability. In addition, the LDCs also demand that members have the option to select their own sui generis system, recognising traditional knowledge and the rights of farmers to use, save and exchange seeds.
As in TRIPS, so also in services. The draft declaration declares the council is satisfied with the progress of negotiations since January 2000, citing the modalities adopted for the purpose of migratory persons, who are seen as capable of leading to economic growth of all trading partners. Beyond this statement, the declaration simply recalls and reaffirms the provisions of the General Agreement on Trades and Services (GATS).
Here the language closely follows that used by the Zanzibar declaration, showing, perhaps, that the council's chairman and director-general were aware of that declaration when they were preparing theirs. But as if to re-emphasise a determination to ignore the spirit of LDC demands, the rest, and possibly more important aspects of the LDC demands regarding LDC local services, modes of supply, and sectors of special interest -- notably tourism, construction and transport -- are left conspicuously absent.
Finally, there is the issue of subsidies and countervailing measures (SCM), which address the unfair advantage created by the heavily subsidised industries of the North. The declaration asks the ministerial conference to "urge" members to apply, where possible, the minimal level of countervailing duties -- that is, cut duties on products originating in developing countries.
This is a meaningless proposal as it only "urges" members, and then even undermines this appeal by adding the nebulous provision "where possible." But who determines the threshold of "where possible"? By contrast, LDCs have demanded to increase the threshold for imports from LDCs and simplify the procedures for taking actions against subsidies and the dumping of cheap products on LDCs by the North.
It is difficult to justify these glaring differences between what the African countries want and what the General Council sees as the possible elements for consensus in Doha. It cannot be because the council is not aware of the views of African countries. Most of these positions were stated in the formal bodies of the WTO, convened by the chairman himself. For instance, at the end of July, the chairman convened the so-called reality-check meeting of WTO members, a meeting for all members to assess the state of the preparations for Doha. The report for this occasion was rebutted firmly by developing country representatives, with LDCs stating precisely how their positions were not covered. The chair of the LDC group took the opportunity to restate, in essence, the entirety of the Zanzibar declaration.
One possible explanation for the cold shoulder suggested by one African diplomat is that by dividing implementation issues into what is realisable immediately, and what needs further work is an effective stalling measure. Presenting something as realisable "now," conveys the impression that there is consensus for progress. Developing countries may, therefore, by suckered into believing that there is some gain now, and thus a basis for more gains in the future. This would lull developing countries into a readiness to negotiate further -- a trap, in short, for developing countries to give up their fundamental issues for illusory short-term gains. So far this is a trap into which African and other developing countries have refused to fall.
* The writer is a research fellow with the African Secretariat of the Accra-based Third World Network.

Recommend this page

© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved

Send a letter to the Editor