1 December 2000

Contents:

Sharan Burrow, ACTU President will launch the AFTINET booklet, The Case for Fair Trade: a Citizen’s Guide to the WTO on Thursday 7 December at 12.30 pm in the Waratah Room of Parliament House, Macquarie St, Sydney .

Top of page

WTO needs open-door policy to survive
by Dr Patricia Ranald

A year ago the World Trade Organisation's credibility was challenged when massive demonstrations delayed the meeting and 70 developing country governments refused to agree to an agenda for a new round of trade negotiations which was developed without their input. WTO negotiations are still stalled, and developing country governments still refuse negotiations without changes to WTO structures and agreements.

Organisations like the Australian Council of Churches, the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council for Overseas Aid are among hundreds which have expressed their concerns to the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's relationship with the WTO. This inquiry, conducted by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, is under way in Canberra. These organisations are hardly protectionist. In fact, they support trade and the need for international regulation of trade. But they question the secretive and undemocratic structures of the WTO, and the impact of its one-size-fits-all policies on very different economies and societies. These concerns are shared with developing country governments.

The WTO is only five years old, but has developed a wide agenda, including services, agriculture, intellectual property and environment and health regulation. These agreements can affect many areas of national policy. The WTO disputes panel can authorise trade sanctions. Panel decisions have challenged Australian policies on export incentives and its quarantine rules on fresh salmon.

The shortcomings of the WTO as an international body become obvious when it's compared with the United Nations. The UN also has its critics, but it has public debates, majority voting and there are non-government community observers. UN agreements usually require domestic legislation to implement them. Thus there is public debate and scrutiny at the international and national levels. Yet WTO meetings are held behind closed doors, there is no public debate, and its provision for majority voting has not been used. Agreements are supposedly reached by consensus, but in reality the "quad" group - the US, Canada, Europe and Japan - often draft agreements which are then discussed with the "green room" group of up to 30 countries. Up to 100 smaller and developing countries are often excluded. The Cairns group on agriculture, in which Australia plays a leading role, and which involves developing countries, is an exception to this process. Business organisations lobby the meetings and are often represented in government delegations, but there are no other community observers. WTO agreements can be legally binding without domestic legislation: often there is no public debate before they are implemented.

Community organisations want several changes. They want trade decision-making meetings to be open, democratic and to have non-government observers. They support the demands of developing country governments for resources for full participation, recognition of their special situation, review of existing trade agreements and assessments of their social impacts. They want basic public goods like the environment, cultural activities, public health and education to remain excluded from trade agreements so that governments can continue to regulate in the public interest. They want trade rules to be consistent with multilateral agreements on environment and human rights. And they want a fair intellectual property rights system that does not allow corporations to patent the natural or cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. If governments and the WTO can't respond to this agenda, the WTO will remain deadlocked. It will also become irrelevant.

The Globalisation Trash or Treasure? Conference in Perth on Nov 25 (advertised in earlier bulletins) and the Launch of the Case for fair Trade Booklet on 7 December are part of a global network of events taking place in all continents to mark the anniversary of the Seattle WTO meeting. In Seattle, Washington and New York, seminars, film shows and press conferences will call for changes to the world trade system outlined in the "WTO shrink or sink" petition which has been signed by hundreds of community organisations around the world, and which was circulated in this bulletin in August. In Canada and the United Kingdom, campaigns are being launched on the dangers that the Trade in Services negotiations could pose to public health and education systems. In France Public forums and rallies will be held in Paris and in Nice where the EU Ministers are meeting.

In Bangladesh, India and the Philippines, farmers and urban activists are organising a series of people’s Caravans or marches. These will highlight the impact of the WTO Trade in Agriculture Agreement and the of Transnational agribusiness companies on traditional farmers with the theme "Citizens on the move for Land and Food without Poisons."

Prime Minister Howard announced that he hopes to complete negotiations on the Australia and Singapore free trade agreement by the end of 2001. There are also reports that the agreement could then be expanded to include New Zealand, Chile and the USA! The Agreement would go much further than the current commitments under WTO agreements. Since the WTO has stalled, the Australian government is swapping to bilateral agreements and attempting to leap-frog over existing policies.

Recent statements by the Minister for Trade and the Secretary of DFAT have indicated that the agreement will cover goods, services, investment and government procurement. Many of these issues were included in the recently–concluded Singapore-New Zealand agreement. This was strongly contested by community organisations. The agreement reduces scrutiny of foreign investment, and prevents preference to local firms in government procurement. An Australia – Singapore agreement would be modelled on this. Such proposals would be contrary to current Australian policies on investment and government procurement.

A Media release by Mark Vaile on 27 November said the government will consult widely with business, state and Territory governments and "other interested parties" on the agreement, but also said that negotiations will start early next year!

It is deeply disturbing that public commitments have been made by our government to an agreement which could challenge existing domestic policies and to a rushed time table before any public debate.

AFTINET has requested wide community consultation. We must ensure that community voices are heard loudly and clearly by our government.

Here’s a foretaste of what we may be up against from a commentary on the Singapore - New Zealand agreement by Jane Kelsey:

"Imagine the Government has announced a law that would prohibit any future government from ever reintroducing tariffs on anything, while it concedes that more factories will close and workers, mainly Maori and Pacific Island women, will lose their jobs as a result.

The same law plans to stop any New Zealand Government from ever again requiring a foreign investor to seek approval for an investment of less than $50 million, except for large or sensitive areas of land and fishing quotas.

It would also prevent central Government and local authorities from ever deciding to Buy New Zealand for purchases over $125,000, so that local businesses and workers might gain a preferential benefit from the money which is collected from them and other citizens through rates and taxation.

Nor could they prefer local companies in tenders for providing environmental services such as waste disposal.

And, despite the Government's concern that regional economies are struggling and the gaps between the rich and the poor are widening, the new law would ban the future use of subsidies to support those communities, and instead promises a foreign country that it will treat their products, services and investors at least as well, if not better, than it treats our own.

Imagine, too, that this proposed law with its detailed schedules is 190 pages long. Copies are made available only on the Government's website. It's too bad if you can't afford a computer, or live in a rural area without reliable links to the internet… This may sound outrageous. Yet that, and more, is the story of the proposed free trade and investment agreement with Singapore."