17 August 2001

Contents:

Report by Martin Khor, Third World Network
(Geneva, 31 July 2001)

The WTO General Council held a 2 day informal meeting on 30 and 31 July for a "stocktaking" or reality check on the situation re Doha Ministerial. It started with the Council chairman Mr Harbinson and the WTO DG Mike Moore saying the situation is sobering as countries are still polarised between those who want a "new round" and those that do not.

It was clear that since the last such stocktaking exercise in June, there has not been any "convergence" of views. The EC's Director General of Trade Peter Carl gave a press conference on 31July and tried to give an impression that there is now a convergence and most countries want a Round, mentioning only India and Malaysia being against. He tried to express optimism. But he did not fool any of the journalists, as they had heard not only Moore's rather down beat assessment but they also saw the statements from many developing countries t hat are against or not prepared to accept a New Round or the new issues associated with it.

Many journalists at the EC press conference asked Peter Carl why he was so "optimistic" or why he claimed convergence of views when so many countries are against it as is clear from their statement. It is true that the US now appears more enthusiastic about a new round and the deputy USTR Peter Allgeier said the US is now prepared to go along with investment and competition as issues for negotiations. His view seemed to be that this was the way to get the EU to agree to liberalise agriculture. But he also admitted that some developing countries find difficulty with the new issues and that they have to be won over, for example by giving them technical assistance.

The real story, however, is that many developing countries spoke up against accepting new issues (investment, competition, govt. procurement, trade facilitation, new rules on environment, labour) at the Doha Ministerial. They expressed great disappointment that their demands for treating "implementation issues" (ie problems faced in meeting their obligations in existing agreements like TRIPS, TRIMS, agriculture, subsidies etc; and problems caused by the developed countries not fulfilling their commitments in opening their markets to poor countries for example in agriculture or textiles) have not been met. When they already face so many problems in implementing the existing agreements, why should they agree to enter negotiations in new areas that will land them with new obligations which they will then have more problems in trying to implement?

Countries that spoke up strongest along these lines included Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Indonesia and Jamaica. Pakistan Ambassador Munir Akram said: "There were 50 proposals for urgent action on implementation. Decisions maybe likely on only three issues at present. This justifies the evaluation there has been no welcome advances, no positive developments, almost no headway towards positive decisions. Unless there are tangible results on implementation, we find it difficult to continue considering proposals to enlarge the negotiating agenda before, at or after Doha. Under present circumstances there is very little prospect for agreement on the four Singapore issues."

The India Ambassador, S. Narayanan, rejected investment, competition, transparency in govt procurement and trade facilitation as negotiating issues for Doha, saying the differences in views between Members cannot be narrowed by then.

Malaysian Ambassador Superamaniam expressed misgivings on how the Doha process had focused on the new issues as if these issues would make or break the Doha conference. "It is abundantly clear the differences in positions are intractable. Clever drafting cannot resolve fundamental difficulties and this has to be recognised...We run the risk of a "Seattle Two" if we continue with the all-or-nothing course....It is clear we are in a state of impasse. We characterise the situation as discouraging, discomforting, demoralising and even depressing. The reality is that the positions on a wide range of issues are sharply divided even at this critical phase."

Ambassdor Halida of Indonesia made a strong statement. She said:"Indonesia is deeply concerned over the initiative by some Members to launch a "comprehensive" round which includes new issues. Indonesia has learned a very good lesson from past experience, that a proposal that looks fair on the surface may have very different and serious consequences. To understandwhat is really at stake we certainly need to understand fully all factors and implications...Insisting to include issues which do not reflect the interests of all Members would be a perfect recipe for failure....The unrealistic expansion of the agenda will place at peril the success of the Ministerial Conference."

Jamaica's Ambassador Ransford Smith: "Time is running out and we may be in danger of repeating recent history unless we focus first on necessary preconditions and secondly on what is possible at this time. For us the resolution of implementation issues is a necessary pre-condition and unfortunately there is very little progress there. We do not believe that beyond the built-in agenda many issues fall into the realm of what is possible. We should admit the reality as quickly as possible."

Very importantly, the poorest members of WTO, ie the LDC countries (there are almost 40 of them in the WTO) represented by the Tanzania Ambassador, told WTO that the LDC Ministers at a meeting in Zanzibar last week had decided that they are not in a position to agree to negotiate new issues, and that the work of the Working Groups on these issues should continue instead.

Said Ambassador Ali Mchumo of Tanzania: "Ministers considered the so-called Singapore issues that include investment, competition policy, environment, transparency in govt procurement and trade facilitation. Given the fact that the issues involved are complex and divergent views exist and that the new issues are yet to be fully understood, especially regarding their implications on LDCs' development, the Ministers were of the view that the study process should continue in the working groups and that time is not ripe for LDCS to undertake negotiations for multilateral regimes on these areas.

"The Africa Group of countries, represented by Zimbabwe, also indicated their reluctance to entertain new issues at Doha. With so many countries expressing their misgivings on the "new issues" in the proposed "comprehensive New Round", it is incredible that the EC can try to "spin" the view to the media and the public that almost all countries, except a couple of hardliners, have "converged" towards the launching of a New Round. The truth is that a majority of WTO Members are opposed to or are not prepared to agree that the Doha meeting initiate negotiations towards new rules or agreements on new issues. They are against the WTO increasing its mandate and through new rules that would land them with new burdens of obligations that could well block their development prospects further.

The WTO delegations will be taking a break in August. In September the discussions continue. In the weeks ahead intense pressure will be applied by the EU, the WTO Secretariat and most probably the US on the developing countries, to get the officials in the capitals and the Ministers to change their minds and accept the launch of a New Round. Such pressures are really unethical, as many developing countries (especially the poorer ones) are vulnerable to pressure due to their dependence on aid and loans, and many are under IMF conditionality. The lesson from this "stocktaking exercise" is that many developing countries (in fact the majority) are very uncomfortable with the New Round idea, and the developed countries should not cause more consternation and anxiety by intensifying the pressure on them, as this will lead to even more polarisation and frustration. However it is also unlikely that this is the lesson the trade policy makers of the developed countries will take. Thus there will be a big battle in the next three months before Doha. If in the end there is a new round, it would mean that the pressures applied would have been tremendous.

Top of page

Lebanese Civil Society groups have established a Lebanese Preparatory platform to hold a World Forum on the WTO in Beirut on November 6 to 8, before the Ministerial Meeting in Doha, Qatar.

The Forum will act as a focus for civil society debate and protest which cannot take place in Qatar because of restrictions on entry visas and protest.

The Lebanese Sponsors are:

1. Trade unions: Lebanese General Federation of Workers, Union of Lebanese Teachers, Union of the Professors in the Lebanese University, Union of Lebanese Farm Workers, Union of Farmers in South Lebanon.

2. NGO coalitions: CDL, CFPCL, The Lebanese NGO Forum, The Lebanese Council for Women, The Lebanese Coordination for the Disabled, The Lebanese council for the defense of the environment, The Lebanese Federation of NGOs for the Defense of the Children's rights, the Lebanese Federation of NGOs Contracted with the Ministry of Social Affairs.

3. Youth and Student groups from the majority of universities and colleges in Lebanon (the Lebanese University, the American University of Beirut, the Lebanese-American University, the Beirut Arab University, the Jesuit University, the Balamand University, Academie Libanaise des Beaux Arts, Notre Dame University).

These organisations have approved a Declaration of Principles. The declaration stresses the imbalances created by corporate globalization, the domination of multinational corporations of global trade, and deficiencies within the WTO structure. The declaration talks about the social gaps between the developing and developed countries, and the social gaps in developed countries between poor and rich.

The Forum is receiving support from other Civil society Goups in the Middle East, Europe and the Americas, including Amnesty International, Public Citizen, Norwegian Peoples’ Aid, Friends of the Earth International, Public Services International, International federation of Building and Wood Workers and the Middle East Council of Churches.

For more information contact Zaid Abdul Samad, Arab NGO Network for Development, annd@cyberia.net.lb

Top of page

Top of page

By Peter Murphy

The Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) will meet in Brisbane from October 6 to 8. There are many reasons for protesting at CHOGM.

There are two strongly competing views about how to protest at CHOGM - shut it down, or make it a forum for protest. The call to blockade and shut down CHOGM has come from just a few organisations, not by consultation, but by declaration. This is not the way to develop the dynamic of popular protest that made such an impact at S11 against the World Economic Forum. It is likely to demobilise and reduce the numbers that will be involved at CHOGM. Already, some activists have started to "switch off" CHOGM.

What are the politics and crucial issues behind this rather bewildering barrage of arguments and demands around CHOGM?

CHOGM is a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. The Commonwealth is a body of 54 nations. All but one are from the former British Empire. Mozambique, a former Portuguese African colony, joined in 1995 because of its historic ties with the anti-apartheid struggle. Commonwealth countries have a population of 1.7 billion, or 30% of the world’s population.

The Commonwealth is the latest evolution of what was the British Empire. It started as the British Commonwealth of Nations after the Imperial Conference of Westminster in 1926. After national liberation movements successfully fought for de-colonisation, which started in India in 1947, the "British" was dropped in 1949 and republics like India welcomed. In 1971, the Singapore Declaration spelt out the Commonwealth’s commitment to improving human rights and seeking racial and economic justice. In 1991, the Harare Declaration spelt out more clearly that democracy and human rights are the basis for Commonwealth membership. However, it was in the Harare Declaration that the language of the neo-liberal TNC agenda started to emerge in the Commonwealth, in parallel with other international institutions influenced by Thatcherism and Reaganism (the Washington Consensus).

The Commonwealth is best understood as something like the United Nations on a smaller scale. It has broad, even amorphous goals, works on the principle of consultation and consensus, and has open processes with non-government organisation involvement. The Commonwealth has no military force, or coercive power apart from suspension and expulsion.

The Commonwealth stays together because Britain wants to maintain its economic, political and cultural influence in a post-Empire context, and because the non-Anglo member nations want the economic support they can obtain from Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Commonwealth is a north-south dialogue in motion - hence its continual name changes and the continuing review of its relevance at every CHOGM. Because it is a north-south dialogue where the "northern" member nations want it to continue, the "southern" member states have bargaining power. This is a major reason why the issues of human rights, democracy and development dominate its activities.

The Commonwealth suspends or expels nations which have military coups and non-democratic forms of government. Cases in point are Apartheid South Africa, Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, Nigeria under the generals, Fiji after its coups and currently, and Pakistan after its recent military coup. Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe is now a focus of Commonwealth concern.

This is in sharp contrast to the World Economic Forum, which is an organisation of the top 1000 transnational corporations (TNCs); or the WTO, which is an organisation of governments focused on neo-liberal free trade and investment; or the IMF which as an international finance agency dominated by the US Treasury Department to impose TNC interests on vulnerable states; or the World Bank, which is a loan agency for infrastructure projects, run by the US Treasury Department also to promote TNC objectives; or the G8, which is the heads of government of the eight richest nations who meet to coordinate economic policy in the interests of the TNCs of their nations. The WEF, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the G8 promote the interests of TNCs in expanding profits, and pay no attention to human rights or democracy.

The CHOGM Business Forum (to be held in Melbourne) is a meeting of TNCs, much like the WEF, and is a proper target for concerted anti-corporate globalisation protests.

The "Stop CHOGM" case

Those arguing to blockade the Brisbane CHOGM meeting rest their case on two points:

a) CHOGM is the British Empire in another name, and we must repudiate its legacy of dispossession of indigenous people in Australia and all over the world. It is illegitimate and must be shut down.

b) CHOGM is the same as the WEF, WTO, IMF / World Bank or the G8. It is there to promote the neo-liberal free trade and investment agenda against human rights, democracy and genuine development. It is claimed that the Brisbane CHOGM will be a caucus of governments to force nations to vote for expansion of the General Agreement on Trade in Services at the WTO November Ministerial Meeting in Qatar, and to vote for a new general negotiating round in the WTO. Therefore it must be shut down.

The "Protest but no blockade" case

On the first point, CHOGM is far removed from the British Empire, and only exists because the former colonies see a value in it. Yes, it is a vestige of the British Empire, but so is the Australian Constitution and the Constitutions of all the Australian state governments. But the people proposing to shut down CHOGM for this reason - the British Empire connection - do not propose to shut down the Queensland Parliament or any parliament in Australia. Why not? Because it is manifest today that these parliaments are based on a democratic vote. The Commonwealth applies the same democratic test to its member states. Indigenous rights are abused in Australia, and in many of the Commonwealth member states - and the CHOGM is the perfect place to protest about these abuses. So why shut it down and deny this international forum as a place to communicate this legitimate protest?

It is only in democratic forums that arguments for human rights and genuine development have got any chance to be advanced. TNCs do not support democratic forums which may regulate or constrain their freedom for the broader social and environmental good. But we should.

On the second point, CHOGM has no standing in the WTO, the WEF, or the IMF / World Bank or the G8. Britain and Canada are the only two Commonwealth members that are members of the G8. Decisions made at CHOGM have no direct bearing on these other forums. Nations which may vote for a resolution on a corporate globalisation issue at CHOGM cannot be bound to vote the same way at Qatar. CHOGM cannot make decisions about GATS.

However, the general corporate globalisation case will be pushed by the desperate pro-TNC forces at CHOGM. That is a good reason to protest against corporate globalisation at CHOGM and to support the majority of member nations which want to maintain their opposition to a new round in the WTO, and oppose extended agendas for GATS, the Agreement on Agriculture, and the Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights. But to try to shut down CHOGM would be to try to suppress this vital debate.

It would be much better to raise these issues forcefully in protests in Brisbane during CHOGM to support the member nations which also oppose any further power going to the TNCs. Any clear division of opinion (no consensus) on these corporate globalisation issues at CHOGM will be a victory for people everywhere, and we should do our best to make it possible for opposition to the neo-liberal agenda to be expressed. Therefore, the "shut it down" approach is self-defeating.

There are other reasons to object to the call to "shut it down". The broader progressive movement and beyond us, the public, have had no chance to discuss together the best approach to CHOGM, and so the "shut it down" approach is going to divide the protest movement, and tend to isolate the "shut it down" group who will look like a self-appointed vanguard. It worked at S11; it worked to a lesser extent at M1 -another corporate target, but it is not likely to work at CHOGM - not a corporate target.

There are important issues to raise at CHOGM that will be on the agenda - democracy in Fiji after the Speight coup. The Commonwealth needs to be much more forceful in its support for a return to the Constitution in Fiji, and protests outside about this issue should be supported.

Nigeria is back in the fold at the Commonwealth, but human rights abuses in the Ogoni country and elsewhere in the oil fields continue. Protests about this issue should be made at CHOGM.

In Zimbabwe, President Mugabe is waging a war against his own people to hold onto power. Opposition democratic forces, known as the Movement for Democratic Change, want to raise their issues at CHOGM, and should be assisted to do so. The Commonwealth has been very slow to criticise Mugabe until now.

In Papua New Guinea, the police recently shot students protesting against the IMF / World Bank program to privatise everything and to open up custom land for sale. The Howard government strongly supports that program. This issue must be raised on the streets at CHOGM.

John Howard claims there are no human rights abuses in Australia, despite the local and international criticism of mandatory sentencing, his denial of the Stolen Generations, his Wik amendments to Native Title, his cuts to funding for Aboriginal programs, his abuse of the human rights of asylum seekers, his coddling of One Nation. The Howard government should be exposed before the whole world at CHOGM. This opportunity would be denied by the "shut it down" tactic.

All these arguments are about the politics of the competing approaches to protests at CHOGM. They may be answered by claims that both the "shut it down" and the "protest" approaches can go ahead together. This may be what happens, but if so, it will be because of a lack of genuine dialogue among the protesters, and it will undo the movements which want to protest at CHOGM but not deny the heads of government the right to meet.

Firstly, this will happen because the mainstream media, dominated by neo-liberal interests, will focus on the division among the protesters and work to advance their ideological campaign against the global protest movement. In the CHOGM case, they will have plenty of poor country representatives saying that they want to meet and that their right is being denied, thus echoing George Bush, Peter Costello and others who say the protesters are selfish people denying the benefits of globalisation to the poor of the world.

Second, the security deployed at CHOGM to stop a blockade will also stop any protests in the vicinity of the CHOGM events at South Brisbane. This will make headlines, no doubt, but not about the central issues. Nor will it win the sympathy of the public and grow the broad movement against the TNC agenda.

See item 7a) Coming events for Brisbane

Top of page

By David Stout
from THE NEW YORK TIMES July 31, 2001

WASHINGTON, July 3 1

In a disappointment for President Bush, his Republican allies in the House today abandoned their attempts, at least for now, to give him broad authority to negotiate trade agreements around the world.

"The long and short of it is we don't have enough Democratic votes," Representative Dick Armey of Texas, the Republican leader, told reporters at midday.

The House leadership had wanted to have a vote on the broad trade authority, also known as "fast track," before Congress adjourns for the August recess this week. Today's announcement by Mr. Armey means a debate will not be held until at least September.

Under the fast-track procedure, a President has the authority to negotiate trade agreements that are subject to yes-or-no votes on Capitol Hill. Without fast track, an agreement negotiated by the President is subject to Congressional amendments.

Starting with Gerald Ford, every President had fast-track authority. But it lapsed during the administration of President Bill Clinton, who was unable to persuade Congress to restore it.

The issue of fast-track authority has been a heated one in recent years. Many Democrats insist that trade agreements should provide sanctions on countries that fail to protect workers and the environment. Republicans are more apt to see such provisions as protectionism.

With Republicans holding only a razor-thin lead in the House, and no longer in control in the Senate, today's announcement by Mr. Armey was not a big surprise.

But Mr. Bush must still be disappointed, and he is unlikely to be consoled by reminders that his predecessor was also unable to win fast-track authority.

Mr. Bush, after all, called fast-track power "one tool I must have" when he spoke at the State Department on May 7. He has also called open trade "a moral imperative" and has declared that when America exports its goods it also exports its values.

Top of page

By Clifford Krauss, Buenos Aires
NEW YORK TIMES, Thursday 2 August 2001

Thousands of unemployed workers, public employees and students blocked highways and city streets across Argentina on Tuesday to protest against government spending cuts aimed at averting a default on foreign debt. Two weeks after a national strike by several unions, the protests were another sign of growing unrest over the country's three-year recession.

Sporadic violence and some arrests were reported as protesters set tyres on fire, beat drums and set up tents in the middle of highways. Traffic was snarled in Buenos Aires and other big cities through the day. Two police officers were reported injured in a confrontation with workers protesting against the planned privatisation of the municipal power company in Cordoba, Argentina's second-largest city.

The blockades are being led by small but well-organised leftist groups that have replaced unions as the most important vehicles for economic protest by the unemployed. There have been dozens of costly road blockades in recent months as the unemployment rate rose to more than 16 per cent, but the blockades on Tuesday were the first nationwide action by the groups.

On Monday, the Senate approved an austerity plan cutting government salaries and pensions by up to 13 per cent and increasing several business taxes. The plan was forced on President Fernando de la Rua three weeks ago as interest rates soared and it became increasingly difficult for the government and provinces to pay the interest on their $US130 billion ($A255 billion) public debt.

The government has promised to erase a projected $1.5 billion deficit for the second half of the year to prevent a default or devaluation. Economists say a devaluation of the peso, whose value is pegged to the dollar, would increase the likelihood that private businesses would default on their own $20 billion foreign debt since most companies owe dollar-valued debts.

On Tuesday, protest leaders threatened to set up weekly road blockades that would become longer until the government reversed the austerity plan and released protesters previously arrested.

Top of page

a) Brisbane: CHOGM Events, October 5 - 8

For those planning to be in Brisbane, here is the information about protest events we have so far. More details will be published in future bulletins.

Friday October 5: Trade union lunch time rally organised by the Queensland Council of Unions

Saturday October 6: CHOGM Action Network protest march and Jubilee rally to Drop the Debt, Musgrave Park.

Sun October 7: Commonwealth Peoples’ Festival, Roma St.

b) Sydney: Seminar, Dance Party and Rally for Fair Trade, Nov 11 and 13.

As previously advertised, a wide coalition of unions and community groups, including many members of AFTINET, is sponsoring a rally and other events to support Fair Trade and oppose new agreements at the WTO Doha meeting.

This is part of a series of protests which will be held around the world during the Doha meeting. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has declared an international day of action on November 9 for unions to take actions to support fair trade in workplaces and communities, and other actions are being planned in many countries.

The program so far in Sydney is:

Sunday November 11, 11am: Seminar: Globalisation, the WTO and building campaigns for alternative policies.

Sunday November 11, 8pm: Dance Party

Tuesday, November 13: Rally, 12 Noon, Darling Harbour, Sydney