1. Successful Sydney Fair Trade Rally
2. WTO Doha Meeting Outcome: US and EU twist arms to get compromise but negotiations on "new issues" delayed until 2003

1. Successful Sydney Fair Trade Rally

Thousands of unionists and members of community organisations marched with colourful banners, music and chanting through the business centre of Sydney on November 13. The rally was part of the series of protests which have taken place around the world over the last week during the WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar, where protest is illegal. It was also held at the same time as the conference of the International Metal Workers Federation in Sydney. Over sixty unions and community organisations sponsored the rally.

Rallies and other events have been held in Ottowa, Washington, Brazil, London, Paris, Germany, Istanbul, Seoul, New Delhi, Manila, Jakarta and Wellington. See www.icftu.org for reports.

At the Sydney rally, speakers from unions, churches, human rights groups, environment groups and the indigenous community criticised WTO agreements for placing trade and commercial interests above local development and human needs. They demanded a fair trade framework based on human rights, labour rights and environmental sustainability.

The rally was well covered in the media with reports on all the main television news bulletins. There were stories with photos in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review,
http://afr.com/australia/2001/11/14/FFX2IQKJYTC.html

Over 200 people attended the seminar on Alternatives to Corporate Globalisation held on Sunday November 11. Participants heard reports of the impact of corporate globalisation from union representatives from South Africa and South Korea. Other speakers analysed the failure of the WTO to respond to the issues raised two years ago at the Seattle meeting by both civil society groups and developing country governments. A panel of social movement and union campaigners outline alternative policies on fair trade, developing country debt, education, aid and labour rights.

2. WTO Doha Meeting Outcome: US and EU twist arms to get compromise but negotiations on "new issues" delayed until 2003

The WTO meeting in Doha, Qatar had to be extended for a day of marathon negotiations in order to reach compromises on deep disagreements between the US and EU and developing country governments. Both developing country governments and civil society observers outside the meeting condemned the bullying tactics and threats on aid and debt relief which were made in order to secure agreement . It is clear that WTO processes remain dominated by the most powerful economic players and calls for democratic change have been ignored.

There are three documents: a general Ministerial Declaration, and specific declarations on Trade in Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Public Health, and on Implementation issues. This brief preliminary analysis mainly deals with the first two of these. The documents are available at http://www.ictsd.org

The main positive outcomes are that negotiations on new issues have been delayed for two years, and that there is a clear statement on the rights of governments to over ride the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies in order to provide cheap medicines and protect public health. But many other issues raised by both developing countries and social movements have not been addressed.

Developing country governments strongly opposed negotiations on the new issues of investment, competition policy and government procurement. The compromise was that these issues remain on the WTO agenda for discussion , but negotiations will not take place on any of them until after the next Ministerial Meeting in 2003, " on the basis of a decision to be taken by explicit consensus". This means that the WTO objective of a completely "new round " of negotiations now has not been achieved. This gives time for both developing country governments and social movements to further campaign against these issues.

However, negotiations will proceed on the existing agreements: on Trade in Services (GATS) on Agriculture and on TRIPS. There will also be negotiations for further tariff reductions on goods. These are the main elements of what the WTO will probably still call a "new round."

Developing country governments held out for a clear statement in the TRIPs and public Health Declaration that the existing agreement does not and shall not prevent governments from "taking measures to protect public health and to promote access to medicines for all". These measures can include the production of cheap generic medicines. There are no specific commitments on the issues of the patenting of life forms, biological diversity and the protection of traditional knowledge of indigenous people and farmers: these remain to be considered as part of ongoing discussions on the TRIPs agreement.

Developing countries secured some general commitments that negotiations on agriculture would recognise their specific needs for food security and rural development. There is also a commitment to "reductions, with a view to phasing out" all forms of export subsidies on agriculture. Export subsidies are used by the EU to reduce the prices of their food exports which can then undercut prices for local farmers. This wording was a compromise after the EU resisted a commitment to total elimination of export subsidies.

One of the worst compromises was reached on environmental issues. There will be negotiations on the relationship between WTO agreement and Multilateral Environment Agreements. But the outcomes will only apply to governments which are parties to the environment agreements. Some commentators see this as a disincentive for governments to sign environment agreements. There is also a general commitment to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade in environmental services, without definition of what these are. Again some fear that this will include water services and dangerous waste products. If these services are treated only as traded goods, public ownership or regulation of by governments them could be open to challenge as barriers to trade. There is no date for completion of these negotiations, but a report will go to the next Ministerial Meeting in 2003.

The proposals put by unions for consideration of labour rights issues have been ignored. The brief paragraph on core labour standards only makes note of work being done by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) on the social dimension of globalisation.

The WTO has not addressed most of the issues raised by both social movements and developing country governments at Seattle two years ago. It remains dominated by the governments of the most powerful economies, influenced by transnational corporations. Some of the worst proposals have been delayed, and there is an important gain on TRIPS and public health. But we still have a long struggle in front of us to achieve a trade framework based on open and democratic processes, equity and social justice for the poor, human and labour rights and protection of the environment.

Top of page