[Cross Posted at two peas, no pod]
I haven’t really been blogging since I got to Hong Kong, because I have been running around like a mad thing instead – trying to attend as many sessions (and protests) as possible. However, today I am feeling too exhausted to keep running around so much and so I thought that I would do a quick update.
The biggest news for the week is the proposed Annex C of GATS (the General Agreement on Trade in Services). Annex C was drafted during the last two months by countries and large corporations who stand to benefit the most from the liberalization of services (e.g. the EU, US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Vivendi, Suez, etc.). Disappointed in the low number of bilateral request-offers under the current GATS agreement (i.e. the number of services sectors that countries have been willing to autonomously liberalise under GATS), these countries and corporations have written this text in an attempt to ensure that liberalization happens rapidly and across many sectors at once.
The main sections of this annex that are really scary are paragraphs 2 and 7. Together these paragraphs introduce plurilateral and sectorial negotiations on services (i.e., a group of countries could approach a small country are ask them to open up negotiations on liberalizing their education or water system). The other thing that is included in paragraph 7(b) is a mandatory element to these requests. The paragraph states that when requested, parties “shall� negotiate – meaning that a country would not be allowed to refuse a request to negotiate over the liberalization of their services. This is significant, because whenever these negotiations have gone ahead, most countries have ended up being pressured into liberalization – and this would be compounded when the negotiations become plurilateral rather than bilateral.
Now, despite the fact that only a small group of countries had drafted this text, and the fact that the rest of the member states of the WTO had been very clear that they did not agree with the text, it was brought to the Ministerials as the ONLY text to be discussed during negotiations. The only concession that was made to this fact was that the text was placed in brackets, to indicate that there was no consensus on it as yet.
An alternative text was then written by the ASEAN countries and another by the ACP countries that both clearly rejected the text of Annex C. However, during the first few days of negotiations, these countries were placed under enormous pressure from the US and the EU (and others) not to table these alternative texts or they would not receive other “concessions� (including the so-called development package or the so-called aid for trade package – both of which are seriously problematic in themselves). For a while things looked very bad and there has been a lot of campaigning in the NGO rooms to support these countries to defend their own positions on Annex C.
The good news is that yesterday, despite massive pressure from the EU and the US, the G90 tabled an alternative text to the GATS, while another group of countries (including Cuba, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela) issued a letter stating that Annex C, having not been agreed by members, is not an appropriate basis for negotiations.
However, the really bad news is that the GATS facilitator, Korean Minister Kim has tried to sum up negotiations by saying that only 15 countries had concerns with the text of Annex C (apparently counting the G90 as only one country!), while 26 wanted Annex C maintained (as though it was a legitimate text in the first place, which is simply false). His suggested resolution was that if there was no consensus by today, he would simply remove the brackets from Annex C and that the text will remain as it is. This would mean that he would be indicated consensus on this text that has been written SOLELY in the interests of Northern countries to open up and exploit the public services of the rest of the world in the global south.
We are now waiting to see how this situation will be resolved. If Annex C is pushed through it will not only be a devastating result for the people of the global south in respect to maintain their public services, but it will also indicate a new and even more anti-democratic process is being introduced into WTO negotiations.
Thanks, Cristy, it’s great to read an eyewitness account as these sort of negotiations tend to get airbrushed in the media, if mentioned at all. It sounds pretty scary though!
Ah it’s all so fair isn’t it? But if this gets through we won’t be crying just for the global south, but we’ll be looking at many of our services opened up to a globalised auction leaving our domestic service providers to compete against resources they cannot match.
Beautiful. I look forward to this Govt as a signatory to this abomination defend itself as the party of Australian small business in this scenario.
It’s at that point that we’ll have lost total control of our own destinies. It’s my recollection that these rules would override local council and community decisions on issues like planning controls etc if an MNC chooses to take said council to the GATS tribunal, bizarrely the Feds would not be involved in this event, the council would have to defend itself before the GATS tribunal.
Thanks for that Cristy. I think it is near impossible to be fully informed on WTO issues. When you get time I wouldn’t mind a fuller explanation of “the so-called development package [and] the so-called aid for trade package” which I’ve seen mentioned but not explained.
As I understand it the Seattle WTO meeting in 1999 blew up because the poor countries were sick of being screwed and sick of the procedural unfairness. The use of bracketed texts is, from reports, an advance on Doha and Cancun, but only superficially so, it seems. The WTO Secretariat is a vipers nest of neoliberals who seem to pull the strings. No-one can tell you, for example, how the coutries are selected for admission to the ‘Green Room’ or even for attendance at the numerous mini-ministerials where the WTO agenda is shaped.
I understand the EU was one of the prime movers on the GATS Annex C. The way I see it the underlying shape of things is as follows:
1. Everyone wants a piece of the action of selling farm produce to the EU and the success of the negotiations is predicated on the EU giving up 10s of billions of dollars worth of their agricultural market to foreigners. If the EU did really open up the spoils would go mainly to the likes of Brazil, the US, Canada, Argentina, Australia etc. The poor countries would be largely elbowed aside in the rush.
2. Some poor countries (not sure which prcisely) have unlimited tarrif-free access to the EU now. They would be worse off because of the competition from Brazil etc and the prices they get now in Europe would fall.
3. The EU are not silly and while their offer on agriculture appears generous it is unlikely to do them serious damage. But in return for their tilt towards openness they want something back and this includes access for their service multinationals to other countries. Compulsion is the only way this is ever going to happen.
4. The poor countries can’t agree to Annex C without damaging their own development. Developing domestic service industries is one of the few paths of economic development open to them.
5. The US has out-manouvered the EU in the publicity stakes with their 60% reduction in subsidies offer. I understand that this does not involve reducing subsidies at all and even allows the US to increase some subsidies. The 60% applies to the maximum subsidy allowable under their legislation, not to the actual subsidy paid.
The idea in WTO ministerials is supposed to be that everyone gives a bit and everyone takes a bit. The whole thing is wrapped up in a ’single undertaking’ where everyone is supposed to be, on balance, better off. The problem in the past is that only the rich and strong have actually been better off. The poor have been suckered by some bait being thrown in that they can’t afford to refuse.
But they have also been suckered because they can’t afford the revenge that would ensue if they were seen as the ones to spoil the party.
They also lack stamina and support capacity. I heard the ‘Green Room’ meetings were going to 2am or 3am in the morning in Hong Kong. At one point people were asked for text by 3pm but by 1pm they didn’t even have the list of items for comment. The EU turned up in Cancun with a support staff of 500, so by and large it’s the big boys who get to write stuff.
One of the best perspectives on the WTO meetings I have read is from Walden Bello the old leftie who heads
Focus on the Global South. Their agenda on the WTO is of course to bury the damn thing, it being counterproductive in terms of develpoment and beyond redemption.
The World Development Movement has a useful piece on the green room and other procedural abominations of the WTO.
And yep, Phil, I think that’s pretty much right.
Brian, yep, pretty spot on. Third World Network are also a great source of information- probably the best, in fact. Most of the small countries, who are not invited into the Green Room negotiations (which have actually been going on all night over the last couple of days) actually get their information from Martin Khor who is very well connected (and knows what he is talking about).
I am at a crap Internet cafe in Bangkok at the moment, but will write more about how truly f–ked the process was soon. I’ll also try to explain the riots at the Convention Centre. This key board sux though, so not now.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/ - Third World Network
Found a better computer so I thought that I would also mention this website - http://www.ictsd.org/ministerial/hongkong/index.htm#news - it has all of the most up-to-date information about the Ministerials and analysis of what it all means etc…
It looks like Annex C stayed in brackets after-all. Not, of course, that this is the end of it. No doubt EU et al. will continue pushing hard for it in the negotiations scheduled for next year in Geneva.
Too much for me to cope with in the short term and probably ever, but thanks Cristy. I was aware of Martin Khor and the TWN but hadn’t visited for a while.
I was interested in the comment on the ‘development package’ which was intended to demonstrate good faith but only succeeds in demonstrating the hypocrisy of the major powers. It also shows how hollow the G8 pronouncements on debt relief and poverty reduction were.
Just on the EU and the US, I don’t think either negotiates in good faith. The EU has an establised position going into the meeting and it is questionable as to whether Mandelson can go beyond this predetermined position.
In the case of the US anything substantive would need to be agreed by and signed off by Congress whose stance is likely to be increasingly protectionist.
I guess what is new is the open disagreement between the big boys and countries like Brasil increasingly prepared to thow their weight around.
The whole thing is becoming a farce and IMHO deserves to die. But with Pascal Lamy in charge I guess it will stagger on.
On the protests those Korean farmers sound like a feisty lot.