DEVELOPING COUNTRIES CHALLENGE WTO'S CORPORATE-LED GLOBALISATION
| As the World Trade Organisation (WTO) braces for its
third ministerial conference in November, developing countries are intensifying their
lobby against free trade policies which they say are being driven and hijacked by narrow
commercial interests of the rich few. The WTO, which transformed from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1995, was touted as the means of enhancing the creation of global wealth and prosperity and promoting the well-being of all citizens of its 134 member states. But even Mike Moore, the newly elected WTO director-general, admits: "The very poor, the (48) least-developed countries still don't get the access they need for their products." The 50-year-old Moore, former New Zealand Prime Minister, becomes the first non-European to lead the WTO or its predecessor, GATT. He takes over at the helm of an organisation viewed by third world countries with growing skepticism as they see their interests always coming second after those with more economic muscle. Writer Martin Khor of the Third World Network Features sums up what he sees as a hijacked world trade agenda saying, "governments of the dominant trading countries are being overly influenced by the narrow commercial interests of their large corporations, which are now in the driving seat of defining trade policy." The third WTO Ministerial Conference is set for 30 November to 3 December 1999, in Seattle, USA, where rich nations are expected to push for a new round of trade liberalisation negotiations, which would begin next year. But developing countries fear that if new issues leading to more liberalisation of world trade are accepted at the Seattle conference, they stand to be further marginalised owing to their weaker negotiating position, among other reasons. At a recent meeting in the South African City of Cape Town, trade ministers of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) added their weight to a worldwide call for globalisation that does not compromise sustainable development. The SADC ministers agreed that the "new negotiations must be based on a balanced agenda accommodating the concerns and interests of SADC member states" including paying particular attention to constraints faced by developing countries. Contrary to popular belief in the industrialised world, the Uruguay Round Agreements, which form the legal basis of the WTO, have resulted in many instances of firm closure and marginalisation of the world's poorest people. In a statement entitled "No New Round; Turn Around Existing Agreements" which was adopted in Ghana early this month, the Africa Trade Network - a coalition of over 25 civil society organisations - says the Uruguay Round Agreements have functioned principally to open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national economies. "Those governments that dominate the WTO... have refused to recognise and address these problems (of collapsing national economies, increasing inequity, increasing environmental and social degradation). Instead, they are pushing for further liberalisation through the introduction of new issues for adoption in the WTO. This will lead to exacerbation of the crisis associated with the process of globalisation and the WTO," reads the statement in part. The NGO coalition opposes proposals to bring up for negotiation new issues relating to investment, competition policy, government procurement and industrial tariff reduction. It argues that a move led by the European Union and Japan "to negotiate an Investment Agreement are attempts to transfer the utterly discredited MAI (Multilateral Agreements on Investment) from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) to the WTO." Developing countries have in the past mounted a stiff resistance against MAI, which would have seen the erosion of sovereign rights of developing states to choose between good or bad investment projects. The proposal has almost sunk into oblivion, although it is now feared to be emerging through other subtle forms. Regarding government procurement decisions especially insofar as preference is given to local firms, the African civil society group sees this as again a sovereign right of a country to empower its own people. Similarly, issues relating to competition policy should be regarded as domestic and "should not be subjected to WTO principles". "On proposals to pressure countries to further cut industrial tariffs, we wish to state that African countries have already drastically reduced their tariffs - especially under structural adjustment programmes - and this has led to closure of local enterprises and de-industrialisation," says the statement adding, "We thus reject another round of industrial tariff cuts." Examples of the failure of structural adjustment programmes are awash. SADC countries like Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, which have toed the International Monetary Fund (IMF) line to the book, have seen their economies gradually sink. For instance Zimbabwe, although many factors can be attributed to its current economic woes, is yet to emerge from its worst recession, despite many years of IMF-inspired economic reforms. Concerns by developing countries about pro-laissez-faire economics are therefore not totally unfounded. Even some free trade gurus have sounded warning bells about what they see as an increasingly overloaded WTO agenda, which is not paying equal attention to all its members, rich or poor. Stanley Johnston, head of OECD, a club of 29 rich nations, says developing countries are being shortchanged in the WTO. He says they are pushed to open up before they can adjust. "The liberalisation of trade and investment must be on a sustainable basis, and this depends on the countries' capacity to absorb and reap the benefits of liberalisation," says the OECD chief. Johnston is of the opinion that integration of developing countries into the trade system should be the priority, and as such developed countries should be worried about the impact their policies have on developing countries. But this will not be the case as long as rich nations play to satisfy interests of their profit-driven but immoral transnationals. The world trade body is notorious for not paying attention to views of civil society, which represent a significant constituency of the citizenry. This is in spite of the fact that WTO policies intrude into the lives of citizens, who are still denied the opportunity to influence its operation. This apparent uneven playing field is what has prompted some to query the impartially of the WTO system. The African NGO coalition statement thus criticises its operation, saying it lacks transparency and is undemocratic. "We urge that the Seattle ministerial conference takes decisions to make the WTO system more open, transparent, democratic and participatory to developing countries, legislatures and civil society," reads the statement. And as writer Khor says, "Leaders of developing countries cannot afford to stand by and watch, with resignation, as the trade machine of the North pushes away the rights of the small and poorer countries to develop their own economies". But they will be hoping the new WTO chief will put his words into action when he says; "At our ministerial conference (in Seattle) it is vital that WTO member governments dedicate themselves to finding solutions to problems of the poorest countries. We need those solutions now, not in seven or eight years". (SARDC). |
15 Downie Avenue, Belgravia |