Contents:

1. SBS Insight program
2. Senate Report blasts WTO and Federal Government on salmon quarantine decision -Brian Jenkins
3. ALP Trade Policy Debate
4. The World Trade Organisation and Genetically Engineered Food In Australia - Rayyar Farhat
5. Australia’s double standards on the WTO and the UN -Patricia Ranald
6. Remember the Trilateral Commission? Fred Bergsten defends free trade against the anti-globalisation backlash
7. Coming Events
   a) Maude Barlow Public Lecture Tues June 27, 6.30 pm. Merewether Bldg Lecture Theatre 2 City Rd, University of Sydney
   b) Sydney University Political Economy Seminars - from June 14

1. SBS Insight program

The SBS Insight program of 8/6/00 dealt with efforts by the Tasmanian government to maintain its own regulation for clean and green products in the face of the WTO ruling on the import of fresh salmon and trials by multinational companies of genetically modified foods. An interview was conducted with AFTINET on the role of the WTO in these issues. However we were informed the day before the broadcast that the interview was not included in the final program by editorial decision - there was too much material and it was decided that an explanation of the WTO role was not needed! The three articles below show how sorely needed it is.

Top of page

2. Senate Report blasts WTO and Federal Government on salmon quarantine decision - Brian Jenkins

The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the importation of raw salmon products was tabled on 5 June just before the SBS Insight program. The report's recommendations strongly support the view of the Tasmanian Parliament that there are serious flaws in the process through which Australia acceded to US and Canadian pressure through the World Trade Organisation to relax its former rigorous protection against importation of diseased salmon products.

The report urges the Australian Government to make a fresh application to the WTO "for a variation to the WTO Rules to have disease free area status applied to fish and fish products that are untreated".

In pursuing primacy of trade interests over the need to protect the integrity of Australian fisheries, aquaculture and recreational fishing, the report argues that the Federal Government paid close attention to the views of overseas critics while failing to properly canvas and consider the viewpoints of local stakeholders.

The report therefore also recommends that the Import Risk Analysis procedures be radically amended to include direct involvement of local stakeholders, and that full consultation should take place before, not after, the development and publication of issues papers.

Other recommendations deal with the failure of the Federal Government to exercise due responsibility in establishing an appropriate level of quarantine protection, and to provide adequate resources for competent management of international legal matters.

The full report is available at
http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/salmon_final/

Top of page

3. The ALP Trade Policy Debate

Trade policy is likely to be a hot topic of debate at the ALP National Conference in Hobart on 31 July - 3 August. A policy of fair trade has been advocated by Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) National Secretary Doug Cameron. The AMWU is a member of AFTINET. Fair Trade would mean that the trade policy framework should include the implementation of basic labour rights and human rights. This debate creates the opportunity for the broader debate about the framework and structures of the WTO advocated by AFTINET.

The ALP Shadow Trade Minister Peter Cook has declared that he will not support fair trade as it is a concept used by the Americans to justify protectionism. The debate has been reported in the Financial Review of June 9 and Sydney Morning Herald of June 13. AFTINET is seeking formal meetings with the ALP and other political parties to discuss their trade policies.

Top of page

4. The WTO and Genetically Engineered Food In Australia by Rayyar Farhat

Community organisations campaigning for an immediate freeze on the release of Genetically Engineered (GE) products into the environment and food supply, now have to contend with the tyranny of the World Trade Organisation. The WTO has many agreements and each of these set guidelines for regulations like food safety. If a signatory nation to the WTO sets more stringent standards, they are dragged in front of a WTO dispute panel to explain this and may be threatened with trade retaliation.

Codex Alimentarius and Genetically Engineered Food

For example, the Codex Alimentarius is the international standard used by the WTO that determines all aspects of food policy . These encompass food safety standards including those arising from GE products as well as labelling issues. The Codex provides a ceiling on the safety and other standards beyond which countries cannot go without being accused of protectionist trade practices. and be bought in front of the dispute panel.

The scientific advisers for any dispute are hand picked by the WTO dispute panel and were evidence is seen as inconclusive, members must accept the standards imposed by the Codex . This process does not allow a nation to exercise the precautionary principle concerning safety issues around GE foods in the absence of evidence and absence of scientific consensus.

It has been said that there is a conflict of interest between the role of Codex as an international body regulating food safety and its connection with corporate interests. Corporate involvement in Codex is quite deep In spite of ostensible representation through government. National delegations to Codex often include corporate representatives from such corporations who have vested interests in genetic engineering of food. These transnational corporations include Monsanto, Nestle, Coca-Cola, Bayer, Kraft, BASF, PepsiCo, M & M Mars, Dupont, Shell, Hershey, Dole, Pfizer and Tyson Foods.

Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)

The SPS Agreement came into being on 1 January 1995 with the creation of the WTO. SPS agreement requires all nations have the same standards in measures dealing with human animal and plant life and health. Thus the agreement requires all members to accept as a ceiling the standards set by agencies such as the Codex Alimentarius. The onus of proof for the application of more stringent standards is on the individual country.

Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT)

The TBT Agreement requires that all nations harmonise technical regulations and standards, including labelling, packaging and marking and certification with international WTO standards. These standards exclude labelling products according to how they have been produced. The information must pertain only to how the product performs.

Both these agreements require that signatory nations "harmonise" standards dealing with protection of the environment, public health and food safety, according to standards set by agencies such as the Codex. The level of stringency of standards can be challenged as a barrier to trade should they exceed these standards .

Codex Meeting in Ottawa May 2000

Surveys in Australia such as those in the UK and Canada show that on average 90% of people want GE food labelled. This is reflected in the recent meeting between national governments agreeing on some form of labelling. The May meeting in Ottawa saw member states agree in principle on labelling. However the definitions of genetically engineered food being sought were so broad and vague that many believe that they have been too compromised. Also the Codex is known for being notoriously slow. The meeting committed only to developing a policy in the next four years.

Thus the Codex does not now have an official position on the Safety of GE foods. In the mean time, any attempt by national governments to impose their own labelling regime- for example on the grounds that GE foods endanger health- may not be considered an acceptable reason in the absence of official Codex policy. In this interim period, the SPS and the TBT agreements could provisionally apply.

What this means is that the US, the major producer of GE food, could consider Australia's labelling regime of GE foods as a barrier to trade, arguing that we are trying to discriminate against their products in the market place. In fact the US has made thinly veiled threats to the Australian and New Zealand governments if they allow labelling of GE food. The US government has stated that "Labelling requirements might severely undermine consumer acceptance of such products". This could result in a complaint to the WTO which if successful would allow the US to impose retaliatory trade measures.

Top of page

5. Australia’s double standards on the WTO and the UN - Patricia Ranald

The shortcomings of the WTO as an international body become obvious when it is compared with the United Nations . The UN was founded after World War Two as a democratic forum to resolve international issues peacefully and establish international legal standards. It has public debates, majority voting, and there are non-government observers. After signing agreements, governments must pass domestic legislation to implement them. Thus there is public debate and accountability at the international and national levels. The UN has developed a wealth of international law on human rights the environment and health and safety. Conformity to UN agreements can be tested in international law but there are no international penalties for breaching them.

Australia has had a good past record of ratifying and abiding by UN agreements. However, since 1996, UN bodies have found that Australian laws passed by the Conservative government are contrary to UN agreements on labour rights and racial discrimination. The Government has ignored the findings and the laws have not been changed. In response to the recent UN findings on race discrimination, government Ministers dismissed the UN decision as an unwarranted interference in Australia’s domestic law.

The WTO was founded in 1995 - a child of the economic rationalist era. It replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), but was given much wider and stronger powers by its member governments than GATT had.

In the WTO there is no public debate, and no majority voting. Agreements are supposedly reached by consensus, but in reality the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan reach agreements which are then presented to smaller and developing countries. The Seattle meeting of the WTO collapsed not only because of demonstrations outside the meeting but because 70 developing country governments which were excluded from the drafting process refused to be steamrollered into agreeing to negotiations on a new agenda in which they had no effective voice.

The WTO has no formal process for non-government observers. Business groups attend the meetings and are also often included in government delegations. The Australian Seattle delegation included eight business representatives and no other community organisations.

The WTO has teeth. WTO agreements are legally binding whether or not there is domestic legislation-often there is no national public debate before agreements are signed. Governments can complain about other government’s regulation on the grounds that it is a barrier to trade. These decisions can be enforced through trade sanctions.

These WTO complaint processes, conducted behind closed doors, have defined environmental regulation and food labelling regulation as barriers to trade. This global regulation favours some corporations, but erodes regulatory standards.

In the last year WTO decisions have resulted in the outlawing of an Australian industry subsidy and the weakening of Australian quarantine laws for the import of fresh salmon. In the latter case, the Australian government moved quickly to change the law without even appealing the decision.

Thus the Australian government refuses labour rights and human rights regulation from the more democratically accountable UN but embraces global economic regulation from a secretive and undemocratic WTO.

AFTINET welcomes the establishment of fair trading relationships with all countries. But it argues that international trade institutions should be open and democratically accountable and should not undermine established regulatory standards. WTO structures do not meet these criteria and should be radically reviewed. UN and ILO principles on human rights, labour rights and the environment should not be undermined by trade agreements. Australian trade policy should be publicly debated and democratically accountable.

Top of page

6. Remember the Trilateral Commission? Fred Bergsten defends free trade against the anti-globalisation backlash

The Trilateral commission is an elite think-tank of leading figures from the US, EU and Japan which became notorious in the 1970s for claiming there was a "surplus of democracy" which posed problems for economic policy requiring discipline and sacrifice. Bergston argued in a speech to their 2000 annual meeting that the free trade framework is in crisis following the defeat of the MAI and the failure of the WTO talks in Seattle and that supporters of free trade must develop strategies to neutralise critics. Full text available from hermann@dove.net.au

Top of page

7. Coming Events

a) Maude Barlow Public Lecture - What’s Wrong with Free Trade?

Maude Barlow is Chairperson of the Council of Canadians, a citizens’ organisation of 100,000 people which has campaigned about the North American Free Trade Agreement. She was a key figure in the campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and posted the confidential draft agreement on the internet in 1997. New Internationalist magazine listed her as one of six key economic thinkers who have dared challenge dominant economic views.

When: Tuesday June 27 at 6.30 pm

Where:

Merewether Lecture Theatre 2, Merewether Bldg, City Rd, University of Sydney, Darlington, south of the footbridge.

Buses 422, 423, 428 from the city and Central.

Please note changed venue for June 14.

Wed 14 June - Deregulation - NB. HOLME BUILDING, COMMON ROOM (Parramatta Rd side) - competitive efficiency - reregulation - oligopoly competition

Presenter: Dr Tim Anderson

Wed 19 July - World Trade Organisation (2) - Wentworth Level 5, Room 5

WTO -TRIPS, TRIMS and MAI - regionalism - fair trade networking

Presenter: Dr Pat Ranald

Wed 9 August - Interest Rates & the $A - Wentworth Level 5, Room 5

- monetary policy - the Reserve Bank - managing the $A

Presenter: Dr Tim Anderson

Wed 18 October - IMF and the World Bank - Wentworth Level 5, Room 5

- international payments - development aid - structural adjustment programs

Presenter: Dr Tim Anderson