We bring the Stop the New Round! (SNR!) campaign to a close. It has been a most grueling and glorious eight months for the farmers, fishers, workers and public interest groups and individuals who came together in February to push for wide-ranging reforms in Philippine trade, agriculture, industrial and general development policy.
We take this opportunity to take stock of what we have accomplished. In the eight months of the Stop the New Round! Campaign, SNR was able to raise the level of trade policy discourse in the country and brought the heretofore shadowy realm of Philippine trade policymaking into the light of national consciousness. With patience, tenacity and a sincere desire for dialogue, we were able to engage both the executive and legislative branches of government, bringing forward a clear-cut and integrated policy agenda as an alternative to the often nebulous positions of our top trade negotiators. The belated disclosure by Trade Secretary Manuel Roxas II of Philippine negotiating positions for Cancun was a concrete product of this engagement.
Recognizing the crucial importance of education work to the success of the campaign, SNR took on the difficult task of raising the consciousness of its core constituencies and the public at large. Through the successful conduct of local fora/consultations, SNR was able to raise local awareness and provide a venue for stakeholders to ventilate their concerns on trade and development issues.
SNR could not have done it alone. We acknowledge the invaluable contribution of friends in the media in this campaign. We thank them for bearing with us and for their patience in sifting through tomes of boring figures and sterile jargon in our shared desire to inform the public. We were keenly aware of the difficulty of making the complexity of international trade accessible to the average Filipino as well to our own members. For both the members of SNR! and of the media, it has been a steep learning curve indeed. But the quality of media reportage as well as the broad reach of the campaign was a testament to the success of our efforts.
We knew from the beginning, however, that ultimately the campaign would take us to the streets of the country’s capital and major cities. And so while an SNR! delegation monitored the progress of the on-going ministerial in Cancun, we marched through the familiar streets of Manila, Cebu and Davao to add our voices to the collective cry of the world’s marginalized farmers, fisherfolk, workers, women and small manufacturers.
We numbered ten thousand from our mobilized constituencies as well as those we were able to reach through our education work at the grassroots, to put pressure on the national leadership to remain steadfast in the face of the arm-twisting and intimidation tactics of the Northern powers.
We made it clear to our negotiators that we would watch them closely in Cancun and hold them accountable to government’s stated positions. The Philippines’ strong stand in the negotiations was, in no small measure, due to the pressure from SNR! and other domestic stakeholders. This was our contribution to the international campaign to prevent the launching of a new round of negotiations in the WTO including talks on the new issues of investments, government procurement and competition policy.
As the dust of the WTO ministerial’s collapse settles, we see the post-Cancun scenario taking shape. The US has announced that it will put more emphasis on bilateral trade talks, where it can more effectively bludgeon other countries into submission. Already, the Group of 21 developing countries, whose refusal to bow to US-EU pressure provided the death blow to any hopes of forging consensus, is being decimated. Meanwhile, the bold rhetoric which Philippine negotiators wielded in Cancun seems to have been abandoned in favor of pragmatism. The Department of Agriculture for instance, has launched a process of consultation to determine which products to include in a “special products” list. This is a clear indication that government is still bent on reducing tariffs, and is generally unwilling to pursue other option especially for threatened products.
Much work remains to be done in the days ahead. And while we close this campaign, we do not see this as a parting of ways. The various sectors that make up SNR! will sustain their campaign for policy change in agriculture, fisheries, industry and services. Many of us will still be working together in our various advocacies and through our other networks and alliances to face the bigger challenge ahead.
We claim the campaign as a success and vow to intensify our varied struggles to ensure that the victory in Cancun we helped bring about does not deteriorate in the face of political expediency.
The Stop the New Round! Coalition
Showing posts with label WTO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WTO. Show all posts
Sep 15, 2003
NGOs Call on Governments to Reject the 13 September Draft Text
The text of 13 September completely sidelines developing countries’ positions which they have voiced for a long time. It also back-tracks on the development promises made in Doha.
US/EU - WTO Secretariat Driven Text
The text does not represent developing countries’ concerns in all areas. It is also not a reflection of the positions expressed by developing countries in the last 2 days of consultations. On 12th September, 90 countries expressed a common position that there should be no negotiations on the Singapore issues. Also on 12th September, Canadian Minister Pettigrew said that the talks were polarized. Yet the text agrees to negotiations on all four issues!
This puts in question the entire legitimacy of the process – the WTO is a consensus-based institution, that supposedly is ‘Member-driven’. This text clearly shows that the institution is US/EU/and WTO Secretariat driven.
Governments are also now commencing Green Room negotiations (of about 30 countries), excluding the majority of Members. This process should also be rejected by developing countries.
Agriculture: Increased Dumping Legitimised, Even as Developing Countries Asked to Open Markets
In both the area of Domestic Supports and Export Subsidies, the text does not call for any serious reforms on the part of the developed countries. Subsidies and dumping will actually be able to increase, even as developing countries are told to decrease their tariff levels drastically.
- Para 1.5. The Green Box is not tackled in any serious way in the text. The Green Box is a major loophole that is allowing dumping to continue. The Green Box is now defined as ‘non-trade distorting’. Subsidies in the Green Box are currently allowed without limits. Of course only developed countries have the money to provide these subsidies. And in the tens of billions, they are certainly trade-distorting. Both the US and EU play games – while reducing supports in the AMS or Amber box subsidies and Blue Box, these are shifted into the WTO-sanctioned Green Box. The phrase in the text that the “Green Box criteria shall be reviewed with a view to ensuring that Green Box measures have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects..” will not require the US and EU to make any reforms.
- Para 3. The Export Subsidies and credits paragraphs renege on the promises made in Doha, that these subsidies will be phased out with a view of ‘elimination’. Instead, 3.1 effectively provides for the continuation of export subsidies.
- 2.1, 2.2, 2.7, 2.8 Unlike for instance the Green Box where no details are provided hence allowing developed countries to continue their current practices, the Market Access commitments are very detailed in calling for developing countries to drastically reduce their tariffs. A mix of formulas are suggested – Uruguay Round as well as Swiss formula. Most developing countries have rejected a Swiss Formula. This formula will wipe out small farmers in the South. Special treatment has been provided to developed countries to maintain high tariffs in 2.2. However, the possibility of developing countries availing to this is ‘remain(s) under negotiation’ (2.8).
- The “strategic products” (SP) is entirely inadequate. Developing countries had asked for no tariff cuts on SPs. The text requires minimal cuts. Tariffs cuts are exempted for products with existing low bound rates. This may help some countries, but for the majority, it is meaningless, since their sensitive products have higher tariff rates.
- 2.9 The Safeguard Mechanism is proposed, but based on tight conditions and only for some products. This Mechanism should be available for all products to address import surges and price drops.
- 6. The Peace Clause gives immunity to developed countries’ subsidies. It should expire as agreed in the current agreement by 31 December 2003 and not be renewed as suggested.
Non-Agricultural Market Access
- In spite of much opposition to Annex B on Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products in the original draft declaration, Annex B on the newly released Draft Declaration is virtually identical to the previous. No substantial changes have been made whatsoever to accommodate and address the sentiments of many developing countries. We reiterate: Annex B employs the non-linear formula for tariff reduction which implies that industries that enjoy high tariff rates will have to experience deeper, more substantive cuts than others, making all tariff lines eventually converge to zero. Furthermore, the Annex also binds the rest of the previously unbound tariff lines at twice the MFN applied rate, and then applies the aforementioned non-linear formula for eventual tariff reduction. This lethal combination robs developing countries of the much-needed policy space and flexibility to promote and nurture chosen industries. Selective and targeted industrial promotion strategies have historically been proven to be of crucial importance to a country’s industrial development, and tariffs and inter-industry tariff differentials are in turn an important component of such strategies. By imposing these harsh tariff cuts on developing countries’ industries, Annex B essentially pulls the plug on any prospect of survival for local industries, and much less on any prospect of industrial development for many developing countries.
- At the same time, Annex B on Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products maintains its weak and feeble reference to non-tariff barriers (NTBs). It has become obvious in recent years that developed countries have used NTBs to protect and promote their chosen industries. Annex B makes no firm commitment on elimination of these NTBs. In fact, it only promises “to proceed with… ultimately negotiations on NTBs.” Annex B therefore, with its combination of the non-linear formula and the non-committal statement on NTBs, is lop-sided and biased, and fundamentally inimical to developing countries’ interests.
GATS: too swift negotiations and no exclusions for public services
The draft declaration text provides mechanisms to intensify the negotiations not to meet the countries’ needs but to liberalise services through market access and rule changes. The draft declaration should contain a “horizontal date” for setting a date to make improved offers by those who have already made offers and urges those who have not submitted to do so as soon as possible. This does not take into account the lack of capacity of developing countries to make offers according to their country’s or peoples’ interests nor refers to the option of not making any offering. On the contrary, the negotiations should only aim at higher levels of liberalisation. Worse, no sector or mode should be “a priori” excluded: this means that the decalaration would explicitly call not to take water services and other basic needs services out of the GATS. The declaration calls for negotiating new rules on subsidies, emergency safeguards, domestic regulation and public procurement to be finanalised at times set (by end 2004 except for emergency safeguards by March 2004) while the negotiations are very contentious and progressing with difficuloty and will have very far implications for countries by restricting domestic regulation and stopping to support their own services even if the declarations refers to the right ro reintroduce new regulations. The best endavour language for services and mode 4 of export interest to developing countries is very weak and with no firm commitment, neglecting the problems of developing countries with increased imports of services.
New Issues: Breach of Doha Agreement
The draft declaration calls for the start of negotiations on trade facilitation and transparency in public procurement while there is no explicit concensus to do so nor on the modalities of the negotiations.[1] Moreover, it keeps investment and competition policy on the agenda of the WTO –as the EU wants- by setting a date (time not yet in draft declation) to agree on modalities for negotiating (i.e commencing negotiations) an investment agreement, without any explicit consensus, and by continuing consideration for modalities for negotiating an agreement on competition. As Doha texts referred to explicit consensus on modalities for the four issues at the fifth Ministerial conference and this explicit consensus was clearly not achieved here, the four issues should be taken off the WTO agenda at this conference: no is no. Linking the date of agreeing modalities on investment negotiations with those on agriculture and NAMA (footnote 1) and linking the report on exploring modalties for competion negotiations will make it very difficult for developing countries to resist agreement on new negotiations in the future. Even the limitations put in the modalities on transparency in public procurement (Annex D) cannot avoid that the negoatiations will go beyond what was agreed in Cancun, as was experienced during the Uruaguay round negotiations.
Backtracking on Implementation Promises
Implementation issues have been a priority issue for developing countries. In Doha, they were promised that decisions would be taken by the end of 2002. There are about 100 implementation proposals on the table. Not only has no decision been taken, the text downgrades the promises to negotiate implementation issues, and merely refers any ‘appropriate action’ to a later date. This is unacceptable.
Special and Differential Treatment
There is a long list of S&D issues proposed by the African Group in Geneva. The ones that would be most meaningful for developing countries are not being addressed in the package proposed. What is offered is also useless since it is only more best-endeavour language (which was the problem in the first place with S&D) and that will not be acted upon.
Cotton: Reinforcing Dumping
Instead of eliminating the dumping in cotton, the text will serve to legitimize the dumping taking place. No binding action is proposed for the developed countries. The structural imbalances will thus be retained. The suggestions to involve the Bretton Woods Institutions to commence with programmes for diversification is merely ‘bribery’ at an international level.
An aggressive agenda for Developing Countries
a) This Draft Ministerial Text has completely destroyed the very few developmental dimensions that were enshrined in the Agenda that came out of Doha Ministerial Conference of the WTO. These developmental dimensions need to be reinstated and built upon by retaining the separate Declarations on “implementation concerns” and “TRIPs and Public Health”. One way in which the developmental concerns should be built upon is by formulating a separate Declaration on the ‘Cotton Initiative’ that would contain effective and unconditional commitments from developed countries towards elimination of cotton subsidies of all forms.
b) “Explicit Consensus” has been extremely critical in maintaining the sovereignty of developing and least developed countries with respect to initiation of negotiations on modalities of Singapore issues (investment, competition, government procurement and trade facilitation). The present Draft Ministerial Text (dated September 13, 2003) denies countries their sovereign right to decide whether they want to negotiate on Singapore issues. It is therefore critical that we reinstate this wording in the Draft Ministerial Text in the form that it was mandated by the Doha Ministerial Conference.
c) WTO has a tradition of respecting “consensus”. The way in which the current language of the Draft Ministerial Text on Singapore issues has been derived, threatens respect for “consensus” at the WTO. Given that there does not exist a “consensus” to initiate negotiation on any aspect of Singapore issues, we must respect this reality and say it clearly that negotiations on any dimension of Singapore issues cannot begin. If we do not want to respect the basic tenet on which WTO functions, it would be worthwhile to dissolve the WTO.
d) Tariffs are the only means for providing a level playing field against import of hugely subsidized products originating from countries, especially developed countries. There should be no tariff reductions entertained in these negotiations.
e) Trade-distorting domestic support and export subsidies have been central features of agricultural regimes in the developed countries. These have essentially benefited large farmers and corporations in these countries who have been able to export highly subsidized agricultural produce leading to the destruction of agriculture in developing countries. What is required and desirable is that developed countries cap and drastically reduce domestic supports across the boxes (green, blue, amber- AMS). Export Subsidies must be eliminated.
f) The peace clause has been a hazard in the growth of agriculture of developing countries. As negotiated during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, we demand that the Peace Clause should die its natural death by 31st December 2004.
g) No offers or negotiations in rules should take place in Services until and unless a proper assessment of the impact of services liberalisation has been conducted. Public services should be taken out of the GATS.
h) “Transparency”, “Accountability”, “Sovereignty” and “Democracy” are central features of any rational decision-making process. The processes of decision-making such as “green rooms” that have become a central feature of the WTO Ministerial Conferences defy all these four tenets of a rational decision-making process. Hence we demand that Chairman Derbez and Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi institute processes of decision-making that respect these features at the present and future Ministerial Conferences and WTO processes. Failure to do so should be treated as a premise on which the WTO should be dismantled.
[1] see letter by Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh (on behalf of the least developed countries), Barbados, Botswana, Belize, China, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Philippines, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Surinam, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tabago, Uganda, Venezuala, Zambia and Zimbabwe) on 12Th September to the facitator Pettigrew about whom complaints were heard about his grilling during bilateral meetings.
US/EU - WTO Secretariat Driven Text
The text does not represent developing countries’ concerns in all areas. It is also not a reflection of the positions expressed by developing countries in the last 2 days of consultations. On 12th September, 90 countries expressed a common position that there should be no negotiations on the Singapore issues. Also on 12th September, Canadian Minister Pettigrew said that the talks were polarized. Yet the text agrees to negotiations on all four issues!
This puts in question the entire legitimacy of the process – the WTO is a consensus-based institution, that supposedly is ‘Member-driven’. This text clearly shows that the institution is US/EU/and WTO Secretariat driven.
Governments are also now commencing Green Room negotiations (of about 30 countries), excluding the majority of Members. This process should also be rejected by developing countries.
Agriculture: Increased Dumping Legitimised, Even as Developing Countries Asked to Open Markets
In both the area of Domestic Supports and Export Subsidies, the text does not call for any serious reforms on the part of the developed countries. Subsidies and dumping will actually be able to increase, even as developing countries are told to decrease their tariff levels drastically.
- Para 1.5. The Green Box is not tackled in any serious way in the text. The Green Box is a major loophole that is allowing dumping to continue. The Green Box is now defined as ‘non-trade distorting’. Subsidies in the Green Box are currently allowed without limits. Of course only developed countries have the money to provide these subsidies. And in the tens of billions, they are certainly trade-distorting. Both the US and EU play games – while reducing supports in the AMS or Amber box subsidies and Blue Box, these are shifted into the WTO-sanctioned Green Box. The phrase in the text that the “Green Box criteria shall be reviewed with a view to ensuring that Green Box measures have no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effects..” will not require the US and EU to make any reforms.
- Para 3. The Export Subsidies and credits paragraphs renege on the promises made in Doha, that these subsidies will be phased out with a view of ‘elimination’. Instead, 3.1 effectively provides for the continuation of export subsidies.
- 2.1, 2.2, 2.7, 2.8 Unlike for instance the Green Box where no details are provided hence allowing developed countries to continue their current practices, the Market Access commitments are very detailed in calling for developing countries to drastically reduce their tariffs. A mix of formulas are suggested – Uruguay Round as well as Swiss formula. Most developing countries have rejected a Swiss Formula. This formula will wipe out small farmers in the South. Special treatment has been provided to developed countries to maintain high tariffs in 2.2. However, the possibility of developing countries availing to this is ‘remain(s) under negotiation’ (2.8).
- The “strategic products” (SP) is entirely inadequate. Developing countries had asked for no tariff cuts on SPs. The text requires minimal cuts. Tariffs cuts are exempted for products with existing low bound rates. This may help some countries, but for the majority, it is meaningless, since their sensitive products have higher tariff rates.
- 2.9 The Safeguard Mechanism is proposed, but based on tight conditions and only for some products. This Mechanism should be available for all products to address import surges and price drops.
- 6. The Peace Clause gives immunity to developed countries’ subsidies. It should expire as agreed in the current agreement by 31 December 2003 and not be renewed as suggested.
Non-Agricultural Market Access
- In spite of much opposition to Annex B on Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products in the original draft declaration, Annex B on the newly released Draft Declaration is virtually identical to the previous. No substantial changes have been made whatsoever to accommodate and address the sentiments of many developing countries. We reiterate: Annex B employs the non-linear formula for tariff reduction which implies that industries that enjoy high tariff rates will have to experience deeper, more substantive cuts than others, making all tariff lines eventually converge to zero. Furthermore, the Annex also binds the rest of the previously unbound tariff lines at twice the MFN applied rate, and then applies the aforementioned non-linear formula for eventual tariff reduction. This lethal combination robs developing countries of the much-needed policy space and flexibility to promote and nurture chosen industries. Selective and targeted industrial promotion strategies have historically been proven to be of crucial importance to a country’s industrial development, and tariffs and inter-industry tariff differentials are in turn an important component of such strategies. By imposing these harsh tariff cuts on developing countries’ industries, Annex B essentially pulls the plug on any prospect of survival for local industries, and much less on any prospect of industrial development for many developing countries.
- At the same time, Annex B on Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products maintains its weak and feeble reference to non-tariff barriers (NTBs). It has become obvious in recent years that developed countries have used NTBs to protect and promote their chosen industries. Annex B makes no firm commitment on elimination of these NTBs. In fact, it only promises “to proceed with… ultimately negotiations on NTBs.” Annex B therefore, with its combination of the non-linear formula and the non-committal statement on NTBs, is lop-sided and biased, and fundamentally inimical to developing countries’ interests.
GATS: too swift negotiations and no exclusions for public services
The draft declaration text provides mechanisms to intensify the negotiations not to meet the countries’ needs but to liberalise services through market access and rule changes. The draft declaration should contain a “horizontal date” for setting a date to make improved offers by those who have already made offers and urges those who have not submitted to do so as soon as possible. This does not take into account the lack of capacity of developing countries to make offers according to their country’s or peoples’ interests nor refers to the option of not making any offering. On the contrary, the negotiations should only aim at higher levels of liberalisation. Worse, no sector or mode should be “a priori” excluded: this means that the decalaration would explicitly call not to take water services and other basic needs services out of the GATS. The declaration calls for negotiating new rules on subsidies, emergency safeguards, domestic regulation and public procurement to be finanalised at times set (by end 2004 except for emergency safeguards by March 2004) while the negotiations are very contentious and progressing with difficuloty and will have very far implications for countries by restricting domestic regulation and stopping to support their own services even if the declarations refers to the right ro reintroduce new regulations. The best endavour language for services and mode 4 of export interest to developing countries is very weak and with no firm commitment, neglecting the problems of developing countries with increased imports of services.
New Issues: Breach of Doha Agreement
The draft declaration calls for the start of negotiations on trade facilitation and transparency in public procurement while there is no explicit concensus to do so nor on the modalities of the negotiations.[1] Moreover, it keeps investment and competition policy on the agenda of the WTO –as the EU wants- by setting a date (time not yet in draft declation) to agree on modalities for negotiating (i.e commencing negotiations) an investment agreement, without any explicit consensus, and by continuing consideration for modalities for negotiating an agreement on competition. As Doha texts referred to explicit consensus on modalities for the four issues at the fifth Ministerial conference and this explicit consensus was clearly not achieved here, the four issues should be taken off the WTO agenda at this conference: no is no. Linking the date of agreeing modalities on investment negotiations with those on agriculture and NAMA (footnote 1) and linking the report on exploring modalties for competion negotiations will make it very difficult for developing countries to resist agreement on new negotiations in the future. Even the limitations put in the modalities on transparency in public procurement (Annex D) cannot avoid that the negoatiations will go beyond what was agreed in Cancun, as was experienced during the Uruaguay round negotiations.
Backtracking on Implementation Promises
Implementation issues have been a priority issue for developing countries. In Doha, they were promised that decisions would be taken by the end of 2002. There are about 100 implementation proposals on the table. Not only has no decision been taken, the text downgrades the promises to negotiate implementation issues, and merely refers any ‘appropriate action’ to a later date. This is unacceptable.
Special and Differential Treatment
There is a long list of S&D issues proposed by the African Group in Geneva. The ones that would be most meaningful for developing countries are not being addressed in the package proposed. What is offered is also useless since it is only more best-endeavour language (which was the problem in the first place with S&D) and that will not be acted upon.
Cotton: Reinforcing Dumping
Instead of eliminating the dumping in cotton, the text will serve to legitimize the dumping taking place. No binding action is proposed for the developed countries. The structural imbalances will thus be retained. The suggestions to involve the Bretton Woods Institutions to commence with programmes for diversification is merely ‘bribery’ at an international level.
An aggressive agenda for Developing Countries
a) This Draft Ministerial Text has completely destroyed the very few developmental dimensions that were enshrined in the Agenda that came out of Doha Ministerial Conference of the WTO. These developmental dimensions need to be reinstated and built upon by retaining the separate Declarations on “implementation concerns” and “TRIPs and Public Health”. One way in which the developmental concerns should be built upon is by formulating a separate Declaration on the ‘Cotton Initiative’ that would contain effective and unconditional commitments from developed countries towards elimination of cotton subsidies of all forms.
b) “Explicit Consensus” has been extremely critical in maintaining the sovereignty of developing and least developed countries with respect to initiation of negotiations on modalities of Singapore issues (investment, competition, government procurement and trade facilitation). The present Draft Ministerial Text (dated September 13, 2003) denies countries their sovereign right to decide whether they want to negotiate on Singapore issues. It is therefore critical that we reinstate this wording in the Draft Ministerial Text in the form that it was mandated by the Doha Ministerial Conference.
c) WTO has a tradition of respecting “consensus”. The way in which the current language of the Draft Ministerial Text on Singapore issues has been derived, threatens respect for “consensus” at the WTO. Given that there does not exist a “consensus” to initiate negotiation on any aspect of Singapore issues, we must respect this reality and say it clearly that negotiations on any dimension of Singapore issues cannot begin. If we do not want to respect the basic tenet on which WTO functions, it would be worthwhile to dissolve the WTO.
d) Tariffs are the only means for providing a level playing field against import of hugely subsidized products originating from countries, especially developed countries. There should be no tariff reductions entertained in these negotiations.
e) Trade-distorting domestic support and export subsidies have been central features of agricultural regimes in the developed countries. These have essentially benefited large farmers and corporations in these countries who have been able to export highly subsidized agricultural produce leading to the destruction of agriculture in developing countries. What is required and desirable is that developed countries cap and drastically reduce domestic supports across the boxes (green, blue, amber- AMS). Export Subsidies must be eliminated.
f) The peace clause has been a hazard in the growth of agriculture of developing countries. As negotiated during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, we demand that the Peace Clause should die its natural death by 31st December 2004.
g) No offers or negotiations in rules should take place in Services until and unless a proper assessment of the impact of services liberalisation has been conducted. Public services should be taken out of the GATS.
h) “Transparency”, “Accountability”, “Sovereignty” and “Democracy” are central features of any rational decision-making process. The processes of decision-making such as “green rooms” that have become a central feature of the WTO Ministerial Conferences defy all these four tenets of a rational decision-making process. Hence we demand that Chairman Derbez and Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi institute processes of decision-making that respect these features at the present and future Ministerial Conferences and WTO processes. Failure to do so should be treated as a premise on which the WTO should be dismantled.
[1] see letter by Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh (on behalf of the least developed countries), Barbados, Botswana, Belize, China, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Philippines, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Surinam, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tabago, Uganda, Venezuala, Zambia and Zimbabwe) on 12Th September to the facitator Pettigrew about whom complaints were heard about his grilling during bilateral meetings.
Sep 13, 2003
WTO Parusa sa mundo!
Nagaganap ngayon (Setyembre 10 - 13) sa Cancun Mexico ang ika-5 Ministerial Meeting ng World Trade Organization kung saan muling pag-uusapan kung paano pahihirapan ng mga mayayamang mga bansa ang mga mahihirap at 'di pa maunlad na mga bansa gaya ng Pilipinas.
Ang mga mayayamang bansa tulad ng United States(US), Japan, Canada, mga bansang kasapi sa European Union (France Great Britain, Spain, iba pa) at Australia ay ipagpipilitan na ipatupad ang mga sumusunc_ na patakaran sa ating ekonomiya:
1) AoA. Agreement on Agriculture. Bunga nito nawawalan tayo ng seguridad sa pagkain dahil babawasan ang mga lupaing pinagtatamnan ng bigas at mais at ang pangunahin na nating itatanim ay mga panluwas na mga halaman tulad ng mga "broccoli" at "cut flowers". Bukod dito, binawasan ang taripa sa maraming mga dayuhang produktong agrikultural kaya bumaha nito sa ating palengke. Bunga nito libo-libong manggagawa at mga magsasaka ang nawalan ng trabaho habang tumaas ng doble ang ating pagangkat ng dayuhang produkto mula $1.6 bilyon nool1g 1993 sa $2.7 billion noong 2000 nang wala naman tayong pinagkukunan ng pambili kundi pangungutang din kung saan ang mga kondisyones ay laic lamang nagbabaon sa atin sa utang at ibayong kahirapan.
2) GATs. General Agreement on Trade in Services. Kaisahan sa pakikipagkalakalan sa serbisyo (edukasyon, kalusugan, komunikasyon, pinansya, iba pang pampublikong serbisyo) Madadagdagan pa ang problema natin sa tubig at kuryente dahil sa patuloy itong hahawakan ng pribadong sektor 0 mga kapitalista hindi na lamang sa Manila kundi sa buong bansa; gayundin sa eduk.-asyon. n€1P_ataa? I]__ng matrikula, ilalako pa ng gobyerno ang mga pampublikong mga paaralan at uim'Jersida'd sa mga kapitalista; napupunta na din ang pampublikong koreo 0 hatid-sulat sa pribadong sektor; atbp.
3) TRIPs. Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights. Anumang paghahangad ng mga mahihirap na bansa gaya ng Pilipinas na umunlad sa pamamagitan ng "transfer of technology" at "leap frogging" (dalawang pamamaraan na naunang ginamit ng mga mauunlad na bansa) ay ipinagbawal na ng WTO. Samantala, inunahan na tayo ng ibang mga bansa sa paghain ng "patent" 0 "karapatan sa pagmamayari" ng mga nililikha na nating "nata de coco" para sa gamit industriyal at ng ating "Iagundi" para sa pagpapaunlad ng medisina.
4) TRIMs. Trade Related Investment Measures. Bahagi nito ang pagbibigay ng karapatan sa mga kapitalista na bawasan 0 hindi gumamit ng mga hilaw na produkto mula sa ating bansa sa mga nililikha nitong mga produkto.
Kaya hindi dapat na magtagumpay ang WTO. Sarna-sarna tayong kumilos at lumaban kasabay ng iba pang mga mapagpalayang kilusan sa buong daigdig upang mapigilan na magtagumpay ang WTO. Tutu/an natin ang ating gobyerno na patuloy na ibenta ang ating kinabukasan sa mga naghahari sa WTO. Pigilan natin ang gobyerno na ipatupad ang mga patakaran ng WTO.
May solusyon sa krisis na ating nadaramal Umasa sa sariling lakas ng pagkakaisal Isulong ang unyonismo ng masang Pilipino!
Jul 28, 2003
Martsa ng Masa Laban Sa Bagong WTO Round!
Pahayag ng Stop the New Round! Coalition
State of the Nation Address (SONA)
Patuloy ang pangunguna ng Pilipinas sa martsa ng liberalisasyon sa ilalim ng bandera ng World Trade Organization (WTO).
Sa Pilipinas, bida sa martsang ito si Pangulong Gloria Macapagal Arroyo na nanguna sa pagpasa ng Senado noong 1994-95 ng labing siyam (19) na mga kasunduan sa ilalim ng Uruguay Round ng General Agreement on Tariff and Trade o GATT at pagsali ng Pilipinas sa WTO.
Kasama sa martsa ni GMA ngayon ang kanyang mga trade negotiators: ang chief negotiator na si Sec. Manuel Roxas II ng Department of Trade and Industry, si Secretary Luis Cito Lorenzo ng Department of Agriculture, at si Sec. Romulo Neri ng National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
Parang “majorette”, taas-nuo at magkabilang tenga ang ngiti ni GMA habang nagmamartsa sabay sa kumpas ng basag na plaka ng mga pangako ng WTO. Makalipas ang siyam na taong taos pusong pagpapatupad ng Pilipinas sa mga kasunduan, ano ang napala natin?
Umunlad ba ang agrikultura at industriya ng bansa? Nangyari ba ang ipinangakong kaunlaran sa ilalim ng WTO? Nasaan ang pangakong 500,000 libong karagdagang hanap buhay kada taon?
Mismong isang mataas na opisyal ng pamahalaan, sa isang sesyon ng Committee on Agriculture sa WTO, ay nagsabi:
Our agricultural sectors that are strategic to food and livelihood security and rural employment have already been destabilized as our development program initiatives are frustrated by the gross unfairness of the international trading environment. Even as I speak, our small producers are being slaughtered in our own markets, even the more resilient and efficient are in distress. (Ang ating agrikultura na mahalga sa kasiguruhan ng ating pagkain at kabuhayan gayundin sa trabaho sa kanayunan ay namimiligro dahil ang ating mga programang pangkaunlaran ay sinasagkaan ng napakadehadong kalakalan sa daigdig. Habang akoy nagsasalita ngayon, ang aming maliliit na prodyuser ay pinapatay sa aming pamilihan, maging ang dating matatag at episyente.)
Lumilinaw ang realidad na halos walang benepisyong nakuha ang Pilipinas sa pagtaya niya sa mga kasunduan sa WTO. Tinamaan ng husto ang agrikultura sa ilalim ng Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) na pinaka hindi pantay sa ilalim ng WTO. Bagsak ang kabuhayan ng mga magsasaka ng mais, gulay, hayupan (baboy, baka, manok) dahil sa pagpasok ng mga angkat na produkto na pinamura ng sangkatutak na subsidyo. Umaabot sa 1 bilyong dolyar kada araw ang suportang ibinibigay sa agrikultura ng mga maunlad na bansang kabilang sa Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Ang pamahalaan ng Estados Unidos halimbawa ay may laang 180 Bilyong dolyar sa loob ng sampung taon sa kanilang agrikultura sa ilalim ng Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 o ang US Farm Bill.
Samantala, ang suportang ibinibigay ng Pilipinas ay di man lamang umabot sa 10 porsyentong de minimis antas ng suporta na pinapayagan sa AOA. Wika nga ng editoryal ng pahayagang New York Times noong Julyo 20, 2003 na may pamagat na “Trade Rigged Against the Poor”, habang halos 1 bilyong tao ang nagkukumahog na mabuhay sa kitang 1 dolyar kada araw, ang mga baka sa European Union ay nakikinabang sa humigit kumulang 2 dolyar kada ulo sa subsidyo mula sa pamahalaan. Dagdag pa nito, na-kabisa na ng Estados Unidos at ng Europa ang puwersahang pagbubukas ng ekonomiya ng mahihirap na bansa sa pag-angkat ng mga produktong industriyal at serbisyo habang napakabagal namang magbukas ng kanilang pamilihan sa pag-angkat ng produkto mula sa mahihirap na bansa.
Maliban sa agrikultura, ang service sector ng ekonomiya na kasalukuyang nagbibigay ng pinakamalaking trabaho sa bansa ay nanganganib din sa ilalim ng liberalisasyon. Halimbawa, gusto ng malalaking bansa na buksan natin ang natitirang proteksyon sa public services at public utilities sa dayuhang puhunan, at tanggalin ang regulasyon sa dayuhang empleyo sa ilalim ng ating Labor Code.
Panibagong Negosasyon sa WTO
Sa darating na Setyembre 10-14 ay gaganapin ang Fifth Ministerial Conference ng WTO sa Cancun, Mexico. Ang Ministerial Conference ang siyang magpapasiya ng bagong kasunduan sa WTO. Di pa man tayo nakakabawi mula sa pinsalang dulot ng mga naunang kasunduan, nais na naman nilang ng maglunsad ng “new round” ng mga kasunduan na:
Higit na pagbaba ng mga Taripa sa mga inaangkat na produktong agrikultural gaya ng mais, gulay at karne
Pagbubukas sa dayuhang kalakal ng mga serbisyo tulad ng tubig, kuryente, transportasyon, at media
Paglawak ng kapangyarihan ng WTO na saklawin ang mga usaping Investment, Competition Policy, Trade Facilitation at Government Procurement
Buhay ng ating bansa ang nakataya, pero patuloy na itinatago ng pamahalaan ang kanyang posisyon sa mga kritikal na usapin sa WTO. Pinagwalang bahala ni Roxas ang kahilingan ng Stop the New Round! Coalition na kanyang ilantad sa publiko ang posisyon ng pamahalaan sa negosasyon. Maging sa Congressional Hearings tungkol dito ay hiniling ni Roxas na isarado sa publiko.
Ipamuka natin kay Pangulong Arroyo ang tunay na State of the Nation. Palakasin natin ang ating pagkilos.. Habang ang kabuhayan ng mga magsasaka, mangingisda at manggagawa ay patuloy na napipinsala ng di makatwirang mga kasunduan sa ilalim ng WTO.
Walang Dapat Ipagdiwang!
Hadlangan ang Martsa tungo sa Kapahamakan!!
Pigilin ang Bagong WTO Round!!
STOP THE NEW ROUND COALITION Organizations:Action for Economic Reforms (AER), Akbayan! Citizens Party, Alliance of Progressive Labor, Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), AR Now!, Bayanihan International Solidarity Secretariat, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Center for Agrarian Reform, Empowerment and Transformation (CARET), Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector (CIU), Focus on the Global South, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Global Network-Philippines, Integrated Rural Development Foundation (IRDF), Kalayaan, Katapat, Kilusang Mangingisda (KM), Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD), Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya (KME), Labor Education and Research Network (LEARN), Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK), Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services (PARRDS), Peoples’ Global Exchange (PGX), Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI), Philippine Network of Rural Development Institutes (Philnet-RDI)Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), Sanlakas, Sarilaya, Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), Tambuyog Development Center (TDC), WomanHealth Philippines Individuals:Jessica Reyes-Cantos, Prof. Rene Ofreneo, Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer, Prof. Perlita Frago , Verna Dinah Viajar, Sharon Quinsaat,
Declaration Endorsed by : Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales, Rep.Mario Aguja – Akbayan Partylist, Rep. Del R. de Guzman - Lone District, Marikina City, Rep. Emmanuel Joel Villanueva - CIBAC Partylist, Rep. Herminio Teves-Chairperson of the House Special Committee on Globalization, , Prof. Rosalinda Pineda-Ofreneo, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, IGTN-Asia/WAGI, Federation of Free Workers (FFW), La Liga Policy Institute, MAKALAYA, PATAMABA National Network of Homeworkers, Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), , Resource Center for Peoples Development (RCPD), Rural Enlightenment and Accretion in Philippine Society (REAPS), Sandigan at Ugnayan ng Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (SUMAPI)
State of the Nation Address (SONA)
Patuloy ang pangunguna ng Pilipinas sa martsa ng liberalisasyon sa ilalim ng bandera ng World Trade Organization (WTO).
Sa Pilipinas, bida sa martsang ito si Pangulong Gloria Macapagal Arroyo na nanguna sa pagpasa ng Senado noong 1994-95 ng labing siyam (19) na mga kasunduan sa ilalim ng Uruguay Round ng General Agreement on Tariff and Trade o GATT at pagsali ng Pilipinas sa WTO.
Kasama sa martsa ni GMA ngayon ang kanyang mga trade negotiators: ang chief negotiator na si Sec. Manuel Roxas II ng Department of Trade and Industry, si Secretary Luis Cito Lorenzo ng Department of Agriculture, at si Sec. Romulo Neri ng National Economic Development Authority (NEDA).
Parang “majorette”, taas-nuo at magkabilang tenga ang ngiti ni GMA habang nagmamartsa sabay sa kumpas ng basag na plaka ng mga pangako ng WTO. Makalipas ang siyam na taong taos pusong pagpapatupad ng Pilipinas sa mga kasunduan, ano ang napala natin?
Umunlad ba ang agrikultura at industriya ng bansa? Nangyari ba ang ipinangakong kaunlaran sa ilalim ng WTO? Nasaan ang pangakong 500,000 libong karagdagang hanap buhay kada taon?
Mismong isang mataas na opisyal ng pamahalaan, sa isang sesyon ng Committee on Agriculture sa WTO, ay nagsabi:
Our agricultural sectors that are strategic to food and livelihood security and rural employment have already been destabilized as our development program initiatives are frustrated by the gross unfairness of the international trading environment. Even as I speak, our small producers are being slaughtered in our own markets, even the more resilient and efficient are in distress. (Ang ating agrikultura na mahalga sa kasiguruhan ng ating pagkain at kabuhayan gayundin sa trabaho sa kanayunan ay namimiligro dahil ang ating mga programang pangkaunlaran ay sinasagkaan ng napakadehadong kalakalan sa daigdig. Habang akoy nagsasalita ngayon, ang aming maliliit na prodyuser ay pinapatay sa aming pamilihan, maging ang dating matatag at episyente.)
Lumilinaw ang realidad na halos walang benepisyong nakuha ang Pilipinas sa pagtaya niya sa mga kasunduan sa WTO. Tinamaan ng husto ang agrikultura sa ilalim ng Agreement on Agriculture (AOA) na pinaka hindi pantay sa ilalim ng WTO. Bagsak ang kabuhayan ng mga magsasaka ng mais, gulay, hayupan (baboy, baka, manok) dahil sa pagpasok ng mga angkat na produkto na pinamura ng sangkatutak na subsidyo. Umaabot sa 1 bilyong dolyar kada araw ang suportang ibinibigay sa agrikultura ng mga maunlad na bansang kabilang sa Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Ang pamahalaan ng Estados Unidos halimbawa ay may laang 180 Bilyong dolyar sa loob ng sampung taon sa kanilang agrikultura sa ilalim ng Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 o ang US Farm Bill.
Samantala, ang suportang ibinibigay ng Pilipinas ay di man lamang umabot sa 10 porsyentong de minimis antas ng suporta na pinapayagan sa AOA. Wika nga ng editoryal ng pahayagang New York Times noong Julyo 20, 2003 na may pamagat na “Trade Rigged Against the Poor”, habang halos 1 bilyong tao ang nagkukumahog na mabuhay sa kitang 1 dolyar kada araw, ang mga baka sa European Union ay nakikinabang sa humigit kumulang 2 dolyar kada ulo sa subsidyo mula sa pamahalaan. Dagdag pa nito, na-kabisa na ng Estados Unidos at ng Europa ang puwersahang pagbubukas ng ekonomiya ng mahihirap na bansa sa pag-angkat ng mga produktong industriyal at serbisyo habang napakabagal namang magbukas ng kanilang pamilihan sa pag-angkat ng produkto mula sa mahihirap na bansa.
Maliban sa agrikultura, ang service sector ng ekonomiya na kasalukuyang nagbibigay ng pinakamalaking trabaho sa bansa ay nanganganib din sa ilalim ng liberalisasyon. Halimbawa, gusto ng malalaking bansa na buksan natin ang natitirang proteksyon sa public services at public utilities sa dayuhang puhunan, at tanggalin ang regulasyon sa dayuhang empleyo sa ilalim ng ating Labor Code.
Panibagong Negosasyon sa WTO
Sa darating na Setyembre 10-14 ay gaganapin ang Fifth Ministerial Conference ng WTO sa Cancun, Mexico. Ang Ministerial Conference ang siyang magpapasiya ng bagong kasunduan sa WTO. Di pa man tayo nakakabawi mula sa pinsalang dulot ng mga naunang kasunduan, nais na naman nilang ng maglunsad ng “new round” ng mga kasunduan na:
Higit na pagbaba ng mga Taripa sa mga inaangkat na produktong agrikultural gaya ng mais, gulay at karne
Pagbubukas sa dayuhang kalakal ng mga serbisyo tulad ng tubig, kuryente, transportasyon, at media
Paglawak ng kapangyarihan ng WTO na saklawin ang mga usaping Investment, Competition Policy, Trade Facilitation at Government Procurement
Buhay ng ating bansa ang nakataya, pero patuloy na itinatago ng pamahalaan ang kanyang posisyon sa mga kritikal na usapin sa WTO. Pinagwalang bahala ni Roxas ang kahilingan ng Stop the New Round! Coalition na kanyang ilantad sa publiko ang posisyon ng pamahalaan sa negosasyon. Maging sa Congressional Hearings tungkol dito ay hiniling ni Roxas na isarado sa publiko.
Ipamuka natin kay Pangulong Arroyo ang tunay na State of the Nation. Palakasin natin ang ating pagkilos.. Habang ang kabuhayan ng mga magsasaka, mangingisda at manggagawa ay patuloy na napipinsala ng di makatwirang mga kasunduan sa ilalim ng WTO.
Walang Dapat Ipagdiwang!
Hadlangan ang Martsa tungo sa Kapahamakan!!
Pigilin ang Bagong WTO Round!!
STOP THE NEW ROUND COALITION Organizations:Action for Economic Reforms (AER), Akbayan! Citizens Party, Alliance of Progressive Labor, Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), AR Now!, Bayanihan International Solidarity Secretariat, Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP), Center for Agrarian Reform, Empowerment and Transformation (CARET), Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector (CIU), Focus on the Global South, Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), Global Network-Philippines, Integrated Rural Development Foundation (IRDF), Kalayaan, Katapat, Kilusang Mangingisda (KM), Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD), Kilusang Makabansang Ekonomiya (KME), Labor Education and Research Network (LEARN), Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK), Partnership for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Services (PARRDS), Peoples’ Global Exchange (PGX), Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI), Philippine Network of Rural Development Institutes (Philnet-RDI)Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM), Sanlakas, Sarilaya, Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), Tambuyog Development Center (TDC), WomanHealth Philippines Individuals:Jessica Reyes-Cantos, Prof. Rene Ofreneo, Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer, Prof. Perlita Frago , Verna Dinah Viajar, Sharon Quinsaat,
Declaration Endorsed by : Rep. Loretta Ann Rosales, Rep.Mario Aguja – Akbayan Partylist, Rep. Del R. de Guzman - Lone District, Marikina City, Rep. Emmanuel Joel Villanueva - CIBAC Partylist, Rep. Herminio Teves-Chairperson of the House Special Committee on Globalization, , Prof. Rosalinda Pineda-Ofreneo, Greenpeace Southeast Asia, IGTN-Asia/WAGI, Federation of Free Workers (FFW), La Liga Policy Institute, MAKALAYA, PATAMABA National Network of Homeworkers, Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA), , Resource Center for Peoples Development (RCPD), Rural Enlightenment and Accretion in Philippine Society (REAPS), Sandigan at Ugnayan ng Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (SUMAPI)
May 9, 2003
REMOVE MAYNILAD! SOLVE THE WATER CRISIS IN POOR COMMUNITIES!
This report attempts a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the Philippines’ membership in the World Trade Organization.
It finds the country deriving no benefits from membership but incurring tremendous costs. Being in this multilateral body has been an unmitigated disaster for the country. Indeed, the appropriate term for the Philippine experience in the WTOfrom 1995 to 2003 is “multilateral punishment.”
Practically all the disadvantages that opponents of WTO membership for the Philippines warned against during the ratification debate in 1994 have come about, even as those who led the country into the organization remain unaccountable for the consequences of their misguided advocacy.
One of the main byproducts of membership has been the erosion of national sovereignty, as the US government took a direct hand in overhauling the Philippine legal system to make it "WTO-consistent." Strong US influence was exercised either through constant pressure from the US Trade Representatives’ Office and US Embassy or directly via consulting groups such as the USAID-funded AGILE program. The latter was especially the case in the areas of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).
Owing to the alignment of our laws with WTO rules, which benefit mainly big northern transnationals, the broad-based diffusion of technology necessary for self-sustaining industrialization has been restricted at the same time that the country, which is rich in genetic resources, has been rendered vulnerable to corporate biopiracy. This process of legal realignment has also eliminated the use of trade policy as a mechanism of industrialization.
The impact of the WTO has been most damaging in the area of agriculture. In one key sector after another—rice, corn, poultry, vegetables—the entry of foreign commodities facilitated by the WTO has resulted in the displacement of significant local production and large numbers of producers. At the same time, membership in the WTO has not protected the Philippines from WTO-illegal restrictions on Philippine exports of products like tuna and bananas imposed by trading powers such as the United States, European Union, and Australia.
Liberalization of agricultural trade combined with a very weak financial and technical support from government has proven to be a deadly formula for Philippine agriculture. State support for agriculture has not even reached the ten per cent de minimis level of subsidization allowable under rules of the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AOA). Lack of government support is the main reason why the idea--floated by pro-WTO advocates during the ratification debate--that, spurred by the AOA, Filipino farmers would move into the production of high valued added crops like cut flowers had little basis. Such a shift has high capital requirements, which can only be provided by the state.
The study contends that, contrary to the reigning neoliberal ideology in Philippine technocratic circles, aggressive state support rather than more liberalization is the solution to the worsening crisis of agriculture.
The study finds that the main source of the negative consequences of the AOA for the Philippines is its being a highly inequitable agreement that institutionalizes high levels of domestic support, subsidization, and tariffs for the United States and the European Union. Such high levels of support have encouraged overproduction and the consequent export dumping that has wreaked havoc on the agricultural sectors of developing countries like the Philippines. The AOA has institutionalized a split between the socialized, subsidized agriculture of the North and the unsubsidized free-market agriculture of the South. It is unlikely that reforms will be allowed that will transform the AOA from being an instrument for monopolistic competition between the EU and the US.
In entering the WTO, the Philippines joined a body that is not only blind to development but non-transparent and non-democratic in decision-making. Effective control is exercised by the big trading powers via a process called "consensus," which disenfranchises most developing countries. Dissatisfaction with WTO decision-making on the part of the developing countries was one of the factors behind the collapse of the Third Ministerial in Seattle in December 1999.
The study finds that it was only through arbitrary procedures, non-transparent mechanisms such as the "Green Room," and intimidation that the big trading powers managed to get the developing countries to agree to the declaration issued by the Fourth Ministerial in Doha, Qatar, held in November 2001. That declaration launched a limited round of new negotiations for trade liberalization that most developing countries had been opposed to before the ministerial.
The momentum from Doha failed to surmount deep-seated differences. Trade negotiations have ground to a halt less than three months before the Fifth Ministerial, which will be held in Cancun, Mexico. The big fear is that in order to push through further global trade liberalization, the negotiators of the big trading powers will again resort to non-transparent methods as in Doha.
The final section of the report underlines the disconcerting degree of non-transparency in the Philippine government's preparations for the Cancun meeting. At this late stage, for instance, it is not clear: 1) if the government will tell the WTO that it is maintaining the rice quota; 2) what services it is planning to open up under GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services); and 3) what its positions are on key questions on the "New Issues" of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation.
Clearly, a more decisive approach to the Cancun Ministerial and the WTO--one that faces up to the fact that it is one of the most damaging agreements and organizations our country has entered into--is overdue.
Executive Summary of
MULTILATERAL PUNISHMENT:
THE PHILIPPINES IN THE WTO, 1995-2003
By Walden Bello
It finds the country deriving no benefits from membership but incurring tremendous costs. Being in this multilateral body has been an unmitigated disaster for the country. Indeed, the appropriate term for the Philippine experience in the WTOfrom 1995 to 2003 is “multilateral punishment.”
Practically all the disadvantages that opponents of WTO membership for the Philippines warned against during the ratification debate in 1994 have come about, even as those who led the country into the organization remain unaccountable for the consequences of their misguided advocacy.
One of the main byproducts of membership has been the erosion of national sovereignty, as the US government took a direct hand in overhauling the Philippine legal system to make it "WTO-consistent." Strong US influence was exercised either through constant pressure from the US Trade Representatives’ Office and US Embassy or directly via consulting groups such as the USAID-funded AGILE program. The latter was especially the case in the areas of Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs).
Owing to the alignment of our laws with WTO rules, which benefit mainly big northern transnationals, the broad-based diffusion of technology necessary for self-sustaining industrialization has been restricted at the same time that the country, which is rich in genetic resources, has been rendered vulnerable to corporate biopiracy. This process of legal realignment has also eliminated the use of trade policy as a mechanism of industrialization.
The impact of the WTO has been most damaging in the area of agriculture. In one key sector after another—rice, corn, poultry, vegetables—the entry of foreign commodities facilitated by the WTO has resulted in the displacement of significant local production and large numbers of producers. At the same time, membership in the WTO has not protected the Philippines from WTO-illegal restrictions on Philippine exports of products like tuna and bananas imposed by trading powers such as the United States, European Union, and Australia.
Liberalization of agricultural trade combined with a very weak financial and technical support from government has proven to be a deadly formula for Philippine agriculture. State support for agriculture has not even reached the ten per cent de minimis level of subsidization allowable under rules of the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AOA). Lack of government support is the main reason why the idea--floated by pro-WTO advocates during the ratification debate--that, spurred by the AOA, Filipino farmers would move into the production of high valued added crops like cut flowers had little basis. Such a shift has high capital requirements, which can only be provided by the state.
The study contends that, contrary to the reigning neoliberal ideology in Philippine technocratic circles, aggressive state support rather than more liberalization is the solution to the worsening crisis of agriculture.
The study finds that the main source of the negative consequences of the AOA for the Philippines is its being a highly inequitable agreement that institutionalizes high levels of domestic support, subsidization, and tariffs for the United States and the European Union. Such high levels of support have encouraged overproduction and the consequent export dumping that has wreaked havoc on the agricultural sectors of developing countries like the Philippines. The AOA has institutionalized a split between the socialized, subsidized agriculture of the North and the unsubsidized free-market agriculture of the South. It is unlikely that reforms will be allowed that will transform the AOA from being an instrument for monopolistic competition between the EU and the US.
In entering the WTO, the Philippines joined a body that is not only blind to development but non-transparent and non-democratic in decision-making. Effective control is exercised by the big trading powers via a process called "consensus," which disenfranchises most developing countries. Dissatisfaction with WTO decision-making on the part of the developing countries was one of the factors behind the collapse of the Third Ministerial in Seattle in December 1999.
The study finds that it was only through arbitrary procedures, non-transparent mechanisms such as the "Green Room," and intimidation that the big trading powers managed to get the developing countries to agree to the declaration issued by the Fourth Ministerial in Doha, Qatar, held in November 2001. That declaration launched a limited round of new negotiations for trade liberalization that most developing countries had been opposed to before the ministerial.
The momentum from Doha failed to surmount deep-seated differences. Trade negotiations have ground to a halt less than three months before the Fifth Ministerial, which will be held in Cancun, Mexico. The big fear is that in order to push through further global trade liberalization, the negotiators of the big trading powers will again resort to non-transparent methods as in Doha.
The final section of the report underlines the disconcerting degree of non-transparency in the Philippine government's preparations for the Cancun meeting. At this late stage, for instance, it is not clear: 1) if the government will tell the WTO that it is maintaining the rice quota; 2) what services it is planning to open up under GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services); and 3) what its positions are on key questions on the "New Issues" of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation.
Clearly, a more decisive approach to the Cancun Ministerial and the WTO--one that faces up to the fact that it is one of the most damaging agreements and organizations our country has entered into--is overdue.
Executive Summary of
MULTILATERAL PUNISHMENT:
THE PHILIPPINES IN THE WTO, 1995-2003
By Walden Bello
Jan 22, 2003
A Strategy for the Cancun WTO Ministerial
Declaration of the Stop the New Round! Coalition Philippines
22 January 2003
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s statement at the October summit of APEC in Mexico decrying the unfair trade rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and her more recent rhetoric against “unbridled globalization” were long overdue. But, as they say, better late than never. One can only wish that during the ratification process in 1994, then Senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had listened to the strong warnings of fair trade groups about the dangers posed by the WTO instead of singing praises to free trade as she led the charge to rubberstamp the Uruguay Round Agreement in the Upper House.
While it acknowledges the WTO’s anti-development thrust, the administration is bereft of a strategy of how to protect us from its consequences. Rhetorical shots across the bow are simply inadequate when dealing with a juggernaut such as the WTO, which is moving on so many fronts simultaneously. The country badly needs a multi-pronged, coordinated strategy for the ongoing negotiations in agriculture, services, and industrial tariffs, and to meet the threat of a new round of liberalization that the trading powers threaten to launch during the Fifth Ministerial in Cancun in September 2003. Time is running out.
Hostage to Cairns
The Agreement on Agriculture (AOA), probably the most unfair of all the WTO agreements, is now being renegotiated in the lead-up to the Cancun meeting. At the time the WTO Agreement was being ratified in 1994, the Philippine government promised that the agriculture sector would be a major beneficiary: agriculture export earnings would increase by at least PhP3.4 B annually, its annual gross value added would increase by PhP60 B, and it will generate an additional 500,000 jobs yearly. These gains proved to be illusory. The balance of trade in agriculture has worsened, there has been minimal improvement in gross value added, and employment in agriculture has not increased appreciably. WTO-mandated liberalization has failed to create the high-value added export crop industries that then Senator Arroyo and pro-WTO technocrats said would emerge from agricultural liberalization, even as there is growing evidence of devastation in livestock and poultry as well as traditional vegetable industries. The rice sector, which the government committed to assist in preparing for the eventual removal of the quantitative restrictions, is now even less prepared for opening-up than it was in 1994. On the other hand, instead of reducing their subsidies, the rich OECD countries have raised their subsidization of their agriculture from $182 billion to close to $500 billion in 2001.
What is the Philippines’ position in the current negotiations? On the critical question of trade in rice, we are in the dark on whether the Philippines is asking for an extension of quantitative restrictions under Annex 5 of the Agreement. With the government unable to deliver on its promise to “prepare the rice sector for global competition,” and with our rice farmers left with nothing else to hold on to, the extension of the country’s right to subject rice to quotas is a clear demand of the sector.
We are told privately and occasionally publicly by officials of the Department of Agriculture that the Philippines is pushing hard for recognition of the principle of “special and differential treatment,” the formal adoption of which would allow us much more leeway in limiting agricultural imports than is allowed by current AOA rules under the principle that our underdeveloped agricultural sector should not be subject to the same rules as agriculture in the developed economies. The reality, however, is that our negotiators are bound by the negotiating position of the Cairns Group, a grouping of developed and developing agro-exporting countries dominated by Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand are mainly interested in dismantling the agricultural subsidy system of the European Union while tolerating that of the United States. Pushing for protection of the developing country agricultural systems under the principle of special and differential treatment is not a priority for Australia and New Zealand. In fact, Australia chooses to interpret special and differential treatment mainly in terms of developing countries being able to provide their agriculture with a minimum amount of subsidies. Why do we continue to voluntarily tie our hands by remaining in the rich country-dominated Cairns Group?
The Threat to Services
Another key critical area is negotiations on services under the General Agreement on Services (GATS). Governments have already begun the process of asking other governments for the service sectors they want opened up, and those requested will have to respond soon. A leaked report recently revealed the breathtaking range of services that the EU wants the Philippines to open up completely or substantially—a long list that includes legal services, accounting and bookkeeping, telecommunications, construction and engineering services, maritime transport, and environmental services.
What is the government’s response to the requests of the EU, US, and other governments? What areas is it offering to liberalize? Citizens should not be kept in the dark about these negotiations. They must at least be informed of what other countries are demanding, what with all the service sector employees that could be displaced by foreign competition in an economy already suffering from persistent high unemployment and underemployment.
An even greater concern is that GATS is really an investment agreement masquerading as a trade agreement, one that will override not only our laws governing foreign investment but the Constitution itself. There is a danger that current moves to amend the Constitution would play into the hands of those who would denationalize control of land, natural resources, and public services such as water, energy, health, education, and other public services via GATS. What this will lead to need not be imagined; it is already experienced in the crisis triggered by the privatization, with significant foreign investor participation, of water and electricity.
The Dangerous “New Issues”
Perhaps the main thrust of the Cancun meeting will be the effort to launch negotiations in the so-called “new issues”: the “trade-related areas” of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation. Such negotiations would result in a vast expansion of the WTO’s powers to non-trade areas. By extending “national treatment” to foreign investors, a new agreement would lead to the near total loss of national control over investment and deprive government of its ability to conduct industrial policy and undertake strategic planning.
The new issues question is very controversial because there is widespread disagreement that the Doha ministerial, in fact, launched negotiations in these areas. According to the Chairman’s statement that accompanied the Doha Declaration, whether or not negotiations will begin in these areas will depend on the “explicit consensus” of all WTO member states at the Cancun summit. Will the Philippine government take a stand, draw a line on the sand, and work with other developing countries to stop this grant of vast new powers to the WTO? Will it stand by India and other developing countries that hold that, in accordance with the statement of the Chairman of the Doha Ministerial, there is as yet no agreement to launch negotiations on the “new issues”?
Or will the Philippines side with the EU, the US, and other developed countries that claim that there is already consensus on launching negotiations?
Trade liberalization, to use the image of C. Fred Bergsten, the free-trade partisan who heads the Institute of International Economics in Washington, DC, is like a bicycle: it collapses if it does not move forward. Which is why the new issues question will be so critical: its resolution will mean either that the WTO, with all its institutionalized inequalities, becomes even more powerful by extending its jurisdiction to new areas of human endeavor, or that the WTO retreats, thus creating the space for countries to follow strategies of economic development that are compatible to their needs.
Talk is cheap. It is worse when government goes back on its words once powerful external forces turn on the heat. In recent discussions around Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA) tariff reductions, for instance, government representatives at first promised some sectors of Philippine industries threatened by tariff reductions that it would not bring down most tariffs to 0-5 per cent by 2003, only to tell the press the next day that it would, in fact, bring down the tariffs to that level next year. With government speaking at both ends of its mouth, people are right to ask if they can really trust Trade and Industry Secretary Mar Roxas and the traditionally weak government negotiating team to represent Philippine interests in the infinitely harder WTO negotiations in Cancun.
Even assuming that the political will is there to challenge the WTO and the big trading powers, it will take a multi-pronged strategy to defend the Philippines’ interests during the ongoing negotiations in agriculture, services, and industrial tariffs and during the Cancun ministerial.
Elements of a Strategy
In the absence of government leadership, we in civil society have taken the initiative in formulating a strategy. The three key points of a Philippine agenda must be:
- opposition to a new round of WTO trade negotiations.
- opposition to further WTO trade and trade-related liberalization.
- opposition to the incorporation of the “new issues” of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation into the WTO agenda.
In addition, we advance the following demands:
- In agriculture, unilaterally extend the quantitative restrictions on rice imports and formulate a stand in the agricultural negotiations that is independent of the Cairns Group. The centerpiece of this position should be the withholding of our approval from any revised agreement that does not give our country the right to restrict market access in key crops, the right to make food security and food self sufficiency central principles of its agricultural trade policy, and the sovereign right to determine its agricultural and food policy. If that means stalemating the negotiations on the AOA by preventing consensus, so be it.
- Oppose extension of WTO jurisdiction to fisheries as part of a strategy of conserving and developing fisheries primarily to meet domestic needs, and work for a fisheries policy that restricts trade and foreign investment damaging to fisherfolk livelihoods and destructive of marine ecosystems.
- Demand the freezing of negotiations in services on the grounds that GATS
subverts the Constitution and foreign investment laws.
- Demand the freezing of negotiations on industrial tariffs on the grounds
that this is a mechanism for dumping cheap industrial goods, leading to job loss and greater poverty in developing countries. This step must be taken within the broader context of an industrial and development framework to be developed after a comprehensive study carried out in collaboration with concerned sectors. Trade instruments and international trade agreements should serve and promote national development objectives.
- Oppose the drive of the US and other developed countries to undermine the Doha Declaration provision allowing developing country governments to override the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs) Agreement in the interests of public health, stop all efforts to extend patents to life and traditional knowledge, and prevent monopoly of technological diffusion by transnational corporations.
- Work with other developing countries to prevent the launching of a new
round of trade liberalization in Cancun. Stand firm on the Chairman’s statement that there is as yet no authority to begin negotiations on the new issues. Refuse to provide the explicit consensus for the start of negotiations on investment, competition policy, and government procurement.
- Coordinate work in defending Philippine national interests in the WTO negotiations and in other multilateral negotiations, particularly in the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA).
There is very little time left to craft a strategy to promote our national interests within the WTO. The Arroyo administration must prove for once that it has the will to defend our national interests, the imagination to rally a multi-nation defense of common interests, and the stamina for a tough campaign. Let it not demonstrate once more, as is the tradition of reactionary Philippine politics and diplomacy, that its bark is fiercer than its bite.
SIGNED:
Organizations:
Action for Economic Reforms (AER)
Akbayan! Citizens Party
Alliance of Progressive Labor
Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao
Bayanihan International Solidarity Secretariat
CARET
Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector
Focus on the Global South
Focus on the Global South – Philippine Programme
Integrated Rural Development Foundation (IRDF)
Kalayaan
Kilusang Mangingisda
Labor Education and Research Network (LEARN)
Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK)
PARRDS
Peoples’ Global Exchange (PGX)
Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI)
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)
Sanlakas
SEARICE
Tambuyog Development Center (TDC)
Individuals:
(Organizations are for identification purposes only)
Jessica Reyes-Cantos (Office of Rep. Del de Guzman)
Prof. Rene Ofreneo (UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations)
Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer (Third World Studies Center)
Prof. Perlita Frago (Third World Studies Center)
Verna Dinah Viajar (Third World Studies Center)
Sharon Quinsaat (Third World Studies Center)
22 January 2003
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s statement at the October summit of APEC in Mexico decrying the unfair trade rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and her more recent rhetoric against “unbridled globalization” were long overdue. But, as they say, better late than never. One can only wish that during the ratification process in 1994, then Senator Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had listened to the strong warnings of fair trade groups about the dangers posed by the WTO instead of singing praises to free trade as she led the charge to rubberstamp the Uruguay Round Agreement in the Upper House.
While it acknowledges the WTO’s anti-development thrust, the administration is bereft of a strategy of how to protect us from its consequences. Rhetorical shots across the bow are simply inadequate when dealing with a juggernaut such as the WTO, which is moving on so many fronts simultaneously. The country badly needs a multi-pronged, coordinated strategy for the ongoing negotiations in agriculture, services, and industrial tariffs, and to meet the threat of a new round of liberalization that the trading powers threaten to launch during the Fifth Ministerial in Cancun in September 2003. Time is running out.
Hostage to Cairns
The Agreement on Agriculture (AOA), probably the most unfair of all the WTO agreements, is now being renegotiated in the lead-up to the Cancun meeting. At the time the WTO Agreement was being ratified in 1994, the Philippine government promised that the agriculture sector would be a major beneficiary: agriculture export earnings would increase by at least PhP3.4 B annually, its annual gross value added would increase by PhP60 B, and it will generate an additional 500,000 jobs yearly. These gains proved to be illusory. The balance of trade in agriculture has worsened, there has been minimal improvement in gross value added, and employment in agriculture has not increased appreciably. WTO-mandated liberalization has failed to create the high-value added export crop industries that then Senator Arroyo and pro-WTO technocrats said would emerge from agricultural liberalization, even as there is growing evidence of devastation in livestock and poultry as well as traditional vegetable industries. The rice sector, which the government committed to assist in preparing for the eventual removal of the quantitative restrictions, is now even less prepared for opening-up than it was in 1994. On the other hand, instead of reducing their subsidies, the rich OECD countries have raised their subsidization of their agriculture from $182 billion to close to $500 billion in 2001.
What is the Philippines’ position in the current negotiations? On the critical question of trade in rice, we are in the dark on whether the Philippines is asking for an extension of quantitative restrictions under Annex 5 of the Agreement. With the government unable to deliver on its promise to “prepare the rice sector for global competition,” and with our rice farmers left with nothing else to hold on to, the extension of the country’s right to subject rice to quotas is a clear demand of the sector.
We are told privately and occasionally publicly by officials of the Department of Agriculture that the Philippines is pushing hard for recognition of the principle of “special and differential treatment,” the formal adoption of which would allow us much more leeway in limiting agricultural imports than is allowed by current AOA rules under the principle that our underdeveloped agricultural sector should not be subject to the same rules as agriculture in the developed economies. The reality, however, is that our negotiators are bound by the negotiating position of the Cairns Group, a grouping of developed and developing agro-exporting countries dominated by Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand are mainly interested in dismantling the agricultural subsidy system of the European Union while tolerating that of the United States. Pushing for protection of the developing country agricultural systems under the principle of special and differential treatment is not a priority for Australia and New Zealand. In fact, Australia chooses to interpret special and differential treatment mainly in terms of developing countries being able to provide their agriculture with a minimum amount of subsidies. Why do we continue to voluntarily tie our hands by remaining in the rich country-dominated Cairns Group?
The Threat to Services
Another key critical area is negotiations on services under the General Agreement on Services (GATS). Governments have already begun the process of asking other governments for the service sectors they want opened up, and those requested will have to respond soon. A leaked report recently revealed the breathtaking range of services that the EU wants the Philippines to open up completely or substantially—a long list that includes legal services, accounting and bookkeeping, telecommunications, construction and engineering services, maritime transport, and environmental services.
What is the government’s response to the requests of the EU, US, and other governments? What areas is it offering to liberalize? Citizens should not be kept in the dark about these negotiations. They must at least be informed of what other countries are demanding, what with all the service sector employees that could be displaced by foreign competition in an economy already suffering from persistent high unemployment and underemployment.
An even greater concern is that GATS is really an investment agreement masquerading as a trade agreement, one that will override not only our laws governing foreign investment but the Constitution itself. There is a danger that current moves to amend the Constitution would play into the hands of those who would denationalize control of land, natural resources, and public services such as water, energy, health, education, and other public services via GATS. What this will lead to need not be imagined; it is already experienced in the crisis triggered by the privatization, with significant foreign investor participation, of water and electricity.
The Dangerous “New Issues”
Perhaps the main thrust of the Cancun meeting will be the effort to launch negotiations in the so-called “new issues”: the “trade-related areas” of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation. Such negotiations would result in a vast expansion of the WTO’s powers to non-trade areas. By extending “national treatment” to foreign investors, a new agreement would lead to the near total loss of national control over investment and deprive government of its ability to conduct industrial policy and undertake strategic planning.
The new issues question is very controversial because there is widespread disagreement that the Doha ministerial, in fact, launched negotiations in these areas. According to the Chairman’s statement that accompanied the Doha Declaration, whether or not negotiations will begin in these areas will depend on the “explicit consensus” of all WTO member states at the Cancun summit. Will the Philippine government take a stand, draw a line on the sand, and work with other developing countries to stop this grant of vast new powers to the WTO? Will it stand by India and other developing countries that hold that, in accordance with the statement of the Chairman of the Doha Ministerial, there is as yet no agreement to launch negotiations on the “new issues”?
Or will the Philippines side with the EU, the US, and other developed countries that claim that there is already consensus on launching negotiations?
Trade liberalization, to use the image of C. Fred Bergsten, the free-trade partisan who heads the Institute of International Economics in Washington, DC, is like a bicycle: it collapses if it does not move forward. Which is why the new issues question will be so critical: its resolution will mean either that the WTO, with all its institutionalized inequalities, becomes even more powerful by extending its jurisdiction to new areas of human endeavor, or that the WTO retreats, thus creating the space for countries to follow strategies of economic development that are compatible to their needs.
Talk is cheap. It is worse when government goes back on its words once powerful external forces turn on the heat. In recent discussions around Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA) tariff reductions, for instance, government representatives at first promised some sectors of Philippine industries threatened by tariff reductions that it would not bring down most tariffs to 0-5 per cent by 2003, only to tell the press the next day that it would, in fact, bring down the tariffs to that level next year. With government speaking at both ends of its mouth, people are right to ask if they can really trust Trade and Industry Secretary Mar Roxas and the traditionally weak government negotiating team to represent Philippine interests in the infinitely harder WTO negotiations in Cancun.
Even assuming that the political will is there to challenge the WTO and the big trading powers, it will take a multi-pronged strategy to defend the Philippines’ interests during the ongoing negotiations in agriculture, services, and industrial tariffs and during the Cancun ministerial.
Elements of a Strategy
In the absence of government leadership, we in civil society have taken the initiative in formulating a strategy. The three key points of a Philippine agenda must be:
- opposition to a new round of WTO trade negotiations.
- opposition to further WTO trade and trade-related liberalization.
- opposition to the incorporation of the “new issues” of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation into the WTO agenda.
In addition, we advance the following demands:
- In agriculture, unilaterally extend the quantitative restrictions on rice imports and formulate a stand in the agricultural negotiations that is independent of the Cairns Group. The centerpiece of this position should be the withholding of our approval from any revised agreement that does not give our country the right to restrict market access in key crops, the right to make food security and food self sufficiency central principles of its agricultural trade policy, and the sovereign right to determine its agricultural and food policy. If that means stalemating the negotiations on the AOA by preventing consensus, so be it.
- Oppose extension of WTO jurisdiction to fisheries as part of a strategy of conserving and developing fisheries primarily to meet domestic needs, and work for a fisheries policy that restricts trade and foreign investment damaging to fisherfolk livelihoods and destructive of marine ecosystems.
- Demand the freezing of negotiations in services on the grounds that GATS
subverts the Constitution and foreign investment laws.
- Demand the freezing of negotiations on industrial tariffs on the grounds
that this is a mechanism for dumping cheap industrial goods, leading to job loss and greater poverty in developing countries. This step must be taken within the broader context of an industrial and development framework to be developed after a comprehensive study carried out in collaboration with concerned sectors. Trade instruments and international trade agreements should serve and promote national development objectives.
- Oppose the drive of the US and other developed countries to undermine the Doha Declaration provision allowing developing country governments to override the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPs) Agreement in the interests of public health, stop all efforts to extend patents to life and traditional knowledge, and prevent monopoly of technological diffusion by transnational corporations.
- Work with other developing countries to prevent the launching of a new
round of trade liberalization in Cancun. Stand firm on the Chairman’s statement that there is as yet no authority to begin negotiations on the new issues. Refuse to provide the explicit consensus for the start of negotiations on investment, competition policy, and government procurement.
- Coordinate work in defending Philippine national interests in the WTO negotiations and in other multilateral negotiations, particularly in the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA).
There is very little time left to craft a strategy to promote our national interests within the WTO. The Arroyo administration must prove for once that it has the will to defend our national interests, the imagination to rally a multi-nation defense of common interests, and the stamina for a tough campaign. Let it not demonstrate once more, as is the tradition of reactionary Philippine politics and diplomacy, that its bark is fiercer than its bite.
SIGNED:
Organizations:
Action for Economic Reforms (AER)
Akbayan! Citizens Party
Alliance of Progressive Labor
Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao
Bayanihan International Solidarity Secretariat
CARET
Confederation of Independent Unions in the Public Sector
Focus on the Global South
Focus on the Global South – Philippine Programme
Integrated Rural Development Foundation (IRDF)
Kalayaan
Kilusang Mangingisda
Labor Education and Research Network (LEARN)
Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK)
PARRDS
Peoples’ Global Exchange (PGX)
Philippine Peasant Institute (PPI)
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)
Sanlakas
SEARICE
Tambuyog Development Center (TDC)
Individuals:
(Organizations are for identification purposes only)
Jessica Reyes-Cantos (Office of Rep. Del de Guzman)
Prof. Rene Ofreneo (UP School of Labor and Industrial Relations)
Prof. Miriam Coronel Ferrer (Third World Studies Center)
Prof. Perlita Frago (Third World Studies Center)
Verna Dinah Viajar (Third World Studies Center)
Sharon Quinsaat (Third World Studies Center)
Jul 27, 2002
Open Letter to Dr. Supachai Regarding Mr. Harbinson's Chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee
26 July 2002
Dear Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi,
Re: Stuart Harbinson As Secretariat Staff, Cannot Retain Chairmanship in the Agriculture Committee Special Session
We look forward to your term as Director General of the WTO commencing in September, as a time for developing countries' interests to be given the long overdue attention they deserve.
In this light, we would like to raise an important matter. Since your appointment of the current Hong Kong Ambassador to the WTO, Mr. Stuart Harbinson as chef de cabinet, we have not heard news that he will relinquish his current Chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee. We seek your assurance that he will step down once he assumes the Secretariat position due to potential conflicts of interest.
For Harbinson to assume both positions would be the accumulation of too much power for a single individual. The legal texts of the WTO, as well as recent debates in the WTO emphasise the importance of keeping Secretariat staff separate from the negotiations.
Article VI.4 of the Agreement Establishing the WTO states that
'The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff of the secretariat shall be exclusively international in character. In the discharge of their duties, the Director General and the staff of the Secretariat shall not seek or accept instructions from any government or any other authority external to the WTO. They shall refrain from any action which might adversely reflect on their position as international officials. The Members of the WTO shall respect the international character of the responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat and shall not seek to influence them in the discharge of their duties.'
More recently, the TNC endorsed the principle that appointments to WTO bodies should be made from among representatives of WTO Members, recognizing that the appointment of the DG ex-officio as TNC Chair was an exception, rather than the rule.
Therefore, to ensure the integrity of the office of the Director General, we ask that you direct Mr. Harbinson to relinquish the Chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee at the same time that he takes on the chef de cabinet position in September.
Organisational Signatures:
ActionAid
Ruchi Tripathi, RTripathi@actionaid.org.uk
Alliance of Progressive Labour (APL), Philippines
Josua Mata, apl@surfshop.net.ph
Africa Gender and Trade Network
Mohau Pheko, integity@sn.apc.org
Asia Gender and Trade Network
Tesa, southgt-discuss@isiswomen.org
Asia Pacific Network for Food Security (APNFS)
Jayson Cainglet, str2000@hotmail.com
Assembly of the Poor, Thailand
Prasittiporn Kan-Onsri, thaipoor@ksc.th.com
Berne Declaration, Switzerland
Andreas Missbach, amissbach@evb.ch
Bretton Woods Project, UK
Jeff Powell, jpowell@brettonwoodsproject.org
Centre for Youth Development and Activities, India
Mathew Mattam, cyda@vsnl.com
Christian Aid, UK
Claire Melamed, cmelamed@christian-aid.org
Coordination Against the WTO, France
Agnes Bertrand, ab.ire@wanadoo.fr
Community IPM in Asia, Indonesia
Nugroho Wienarto, nugrohowienarto@yahoo.com
Development Alternatives with Women For a New Era (DAWN)
Claire Slatter, Slatter_c@usp.ac.fj
Friends of the Earth, England, Wales and N Ireland
Ronnie Hall, ronnieh@gn.apc.org
Friends of the Earth Latin America and Caribbean, ATALC
Alberto Villarreal, comerc@redes.org.uy
Friends of the Earth, Netherlands (VMD, Leiden)
J.W.VanLeenhoff, wil.low@12move.nl
Friends of the Earth, Uruguay, REDES
Alberto Villarreal, comerc@redes.org.uy
Focus on the Global South - Thailand, Geneva
Walden Bello, waldenbello@yahoo.com, Aileen Kwa, aileenkwa@yahoo.com
Economic Research Foundation, New Delhi, India
CP Chandrasekhar, cpc@vsnl.com
Fedeerasi Serikat Petani Indonesia (FSPI)
Indra Lubis, petani@indosat.net.id
Foundation for Ecological Recovery, Thailand
Kannikar Kijtiwatchakul, kakablue@yahoo.com or terraper@comnet.ksc.net.th
Food First / Institute for Food and Development Policy, United States
Anurandha Mittal, amittal@foodfirst.org
Hazards Centre, New Delhi, India
A.K.Roy, haz_cen@vsnl.net
Ibaraki Prefecture Agricultural Extension workers Union, Japan
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), United States
Shefali Sharma, ssharma@iatp.org, Steve Suppan, ssuppan@iatp.org
Institute for Economic Relocalisation, France
Agnes Bertrand, ab.ire@wanadoo.fr
International South Group Network
Yash Tandon, seatini.zw@undp.org
Integrated Rural Development Foundation, Philippines
Jayson Cainglet, str2000@hotmail.com
Labour Solidarity of North Sumatra
Agus Arifin, buruhsbsu1@hotmail.com
NGO Forum on Cambodia, Cambodia
Russell Peterson, ngoforum@ngoforum.org.kh
Pax Christi Australia
Joseph Camilleri, j.camilleri@latrobe.edu.au
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), Malaysia
Sarojeni Rengam, panap@panap.net
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Philippines
Marivic Raquiza, mraquiza@surfshop.net.ph
Resource Center for People's Development, Philippines
Francisco Pascual, rcpd@info.com.ph
Seatini, Zimbabwe
Yash Tandon, seatini.zw@undp.org
SEWA, Nepal
Sunil Manandhar, sewa@sewahq.wlink.com.np
Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement, Tonga
Lopeti Senituli, demo@kalianet.to
WEED, Weltwirtschaft, Okologie and Entwicklung, Germany
Peter Wahl, peter.wahl@weedbonn.org
West Java Peasant Movement, Indonesia
Supersemar Semar, spjboke@yahoo.com
WINFA
Arthur Bobb, winfa@caribsurf.com, spicytrade@yahoogroups.com
Women's Research and Action Group, Mumbai, India
Mona Mehta, wrag@sancharnet.in
Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development, Zimbabwe
zimcodd@africaonline.co.zw
Individual Signatures:
Armah Zolu Jallah, jallah1998@yahoo.com
Chris Dixon, Department of Politics, Guildhall University, UK
Professor of International Development, cdixon@lgu.ac.uk
Gregore Lopez, Malaysia
st_greg@yahoo.com
Gail E.Evans, School of Law, Southern Cross University, Australia
gevans@scu.edu.au
Jaromir Kohlicek, Czech Republic,
Member of Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament, Kohlicek@psp.cz
Kudakwashe Ndoro
Commercial Farmers Union, Zimbabwe, kudand@cfu.co.zw
Vishal Singhal, India, vishal@spjimr.ernet.in
Ziaul Haque Mukta,
Associate Coordinator, Actionaid Bangledesh, mukta@fo.actionaid.bd.org
Mayumi KAWAHARADA
Supervisier, Labor Gakuen Institute, Japan
Nobuko FUJINAGA
Editor, A SEED, Japan
Michiyo FURUHASHI
Tokyo Met. Env. Education Leader, Japan
Osamu HAYAKAWA
Professor, Nippon University, Japan
Osamu HORII
Secretary General, Niigata Independent Farmers Union, Japan
Mika IBA
Executive Director, mika@mb.kcom.ne.jp
NESSFE (Network for Safe and Secure Food and Environment), Japan
Hideo IIDA
Secretary General, All Osaka Consumers' Organization Coordination Office, Japan
Junko KAMEDA
Consumer Cooperative's staff, Japan
Hiroko KAMIBAYASHI
Secretary General, "Our Seed Declaration" Office, Japan
Yasushi KUROI
Independent Writer, Japan
Nobuyoshi OKAZAKI
Executive, Osaka Pal Consumers Cooperative, Japan
Yukie SATO
Member of a citizens' coalition for WSSD, Sendai (Insurance firm employee), Japan
Shirou SUGITA,
Plantgenetist, Japan
Hitoshi TANAKA
Executive, Public workers Union Chapter, agricultural extension official, Japan
Hidefumi SUZUKI
Agricultural Extension worker, Japan
Hideko TOMITA
Local government employee, Japan
Yoetsu SASAKI
Miyagi Prefecture Food and Agriculture Network, Japan
Dear Dr Supachai Panitchpakdi,
Re: Stuart Harbinson As Secretariat Staff, Cannot Retain Chairmanship in the Agriculture Committee Special Session
We look forward to your term as Director General of the WTO commencing in September, as a time for developing countries' interests to be given the long overdue attention they deserve.
In this light, we would like to raise an important matter. Since your appointment of the current Hong Kong Ambassador to the WTO, Mr. Stuart Harbinson as chef de cabinet, we have not heard news that he will relinquish his current Chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee. We seek your assurance that he will step down once he assumes the Secretariat position due to potential conflicts of interest.
For Harbinson to assume both positions would be the accumulation of too much power for a single individual. The legal texts of the WTO, as well as recent debates in the WTO emphasise the importance of keeping Secretariat staff separate from the negotiations.
Article VI.4 of the Agreement Establishing the WTO states that
'The responsibilities of the Director General and of the staff of the secretariat shall be exclusively international in character. In the discharge of their duties, the Director General and the staff of the Secretariat shall not seek or accept instructions from any government or any other authority external to the WTO. They shall refrain from any action which might adversely reflect on their position as international officials. The Members of the WTO shall respect the international character of the responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat and shall not seek to influence them in the discharge of their duties.'
More recently, the TNC endorsed the principle that appointments to WTO bodies should be made from among representatives of WTO Members, recognizing that the appointment of the DG ex-officio as TNC Chair was an exception, rather than the rule.
Therefore, to ensure the integrity of the office of the Director General, we ask that you direct Mr. Harbinson to relinquish the Chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee at the same time that he takes on the chef de cabinet position in September.
Organisational Signatures:
ActionAid
Ruchi Tripathi, RTripathi@actionaid.org.uk
Alliance of Progressive Labour (APL), Philippines
Josua Mata, apl@surfshop.net.ph
Africa Gender and Trade Network
Mohau Pheko, integity@sn.apc.org
Asia Gender and Trade Network
Tesa, southgt-discuss@isiswomen.org
Asia Pacific Network for Food Security (APNFS)
Jayson Cainglet, str2000@hotmail.com
Assembly of the Poor, Thailand
Prasittiporn Kan-Onsri, thaipoor@ksc.th.com
Berne Declaration, Switzerland
Andreas Missbach, amissbach@evb.ch
Bretton Woods Project, UK
Jeff Powell, jpowell@brettonwoodsproject.org
Centre for Youth Development and Activities, India
Mathew Mattam, cyda@vsnl.com
Christian Aid, UK
Claire Melamed, cmelamed@christian-aid.org
Coordination Against the WTO, France
Agnes Bertrand, ab.ire@wanadoo.fr
Community IPM in Asia, Indonesia
Nugroho Wienarto, nugrohowienarto@yahoo.com
Development Alternatives with Women For a New Era (DAWN)
Claire Slatter, Slatter_c@usp.ac.fj
Friends of the Earth, England, Wales and N Ireland
Ronnie Hall, ronnieh@gn.apc.org
Friends of the Earth Latin America and Caribbean, ATALC
Alberto Villarreal, comerc@redes.org.uy
Friends of the Earth, Netherlands (VMD, Leiden)
J.W.VanLeenhoff, wil.low@12move.nl
Friends of the Earth, Uruguay, REDES
Alberto Villarreal, comerc@redes.org.uy
Focus on the Global South - Thailand, Geneva
Walden Bello, waldenbello@yahoo.com, Aileen Kwa, aileenkwa@yahoo.com
Economic Research Foundation, New Delhi, India
CP Chandrasekhar, cpc@vsnl.com
Fedeerasi Serikat Petani Indonesia (FSPI)
Indra Lubis, petani@indosat.net.id
Foundation for Ecological Recovery, Thailand
Kannikar Kijtiwatchakul, kakablue@yahoo.com or terraper@comnet.ksc.net.th
Food First / Institute for Food and Development Policy, United States
Anurandha Mittal, amittal@foodfirst.org
Hazards Centre, New Delhi, India
A.K.Roy, haz_cen@vsnl.net
Ibaraki Prefecture Agricultural Extension workers Union, Japan
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), United States
Shefali Sharma, ssharma@iatp.org, Steve Suppan, ssuppan@iatp.org
Institute for Economic Relocalisation, France
Agnes Bertrand, ab.ire@wanadoo.fr
International South Group Network
Yash Tandon, seatini.zw@undp.org
Integrated Rural Development Foundation, Philippines
Jayson Cainglet, str2000@hotmail.com
Labour Solidarity of North Sumatra
Agus Arifin, buruhsbsu1@hotmail.com
NGO Forum on Cambodia, Cambodia
Russell Peterson, ngoforum@ngoforum.org.kh
Pax Christi Australia
Joseph Camilleri, j.camilleri@latrobe.edu.au
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), Malaysia
Sarojeni Rengam, panap@panap.net
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement, Philippines
Marivic Raquiza, mraquiza@surfshop.net.ph
Resource Center for People's Development, Philippines
Francisco Pascual, rcpd@info.com.ph
Seatini, Zimbabwe
Yash Tandon, seatini.zw@undp.org
SEWA, Nepal
Sunil Manandhar, sewa@sewahq.wlink.com.np
Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement, Tonga
Lopeti Senituli, demo@kalianet.to
WEED, Weltwirtschaft, Okologie and Entwicklung, Germany
Peter Wahl, peter.wahl@weedbonn.org
West Java Peasant Movement, Indonesia
Supersemar Semar, spjboke@yahoo.com
WINFA
Arthur Bobb, winfa@caribsurf.com, spicytrade@yahoogroups.com
Women's Research and Action Group, Mumbai, India
Mona Mehta, wrag@sancharnet.in
Zimbabwe Coalition on Debt and Development, Zimbabwe
zimcodd@africaonline.co.zw
Individual Signatures:
Armah Zolu Jallah, jallah1998@yahoo.com
Chris Dixon, Department of Politics, Guildhall University, UK
Professor of International Development, cdixon@lgu.ac.uk
Gregore Lopez, Malaysia
st_greg@yahoo.com
Gail E.Evans, School of Law, Southern Cross University, Australia
gevans@scu.edu.au
Jaromir Kohlicek, Czech Republic,
Member of Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament, Kohlicek@psp.cz
Kudakwashe Ndoro
Commercial Farmers Union, Zimbabwe, kudand@cfu.co.zw
Vishal Singhal, India, vishal@spjimr.ernet.in
Ziaul Haque Mukta,
Associate Coordinator, Actionaid Bangledesh, mukta@fo.actionaid.bd.org
Mayumi KAWAHARADA
Supervisier, Labor Gakuen Institute, Japan
Nobuko FUJINAGA
Editor, A SEED, Japan
Michiyo FURUHASHI
Tokyo Met. Env. Education Leader, Japan
Osamu HAYAKAWA
Professor, Nippon University, Japan
Osamu HORII
Secretary General, Niigata Independent Farmers Union, Japan
Mika IBA
Executive Director, mika@mb.kcom.ne.jp
NESSFE (Network for Safe and Secure Food and Environment), Japan
Hideo IIDA
Secretary General, All Osaka Consumers' Organization Coordination Office, Japan
Junko KAMEDA
Consumer Cooperative's staff, Japan
Hiroko KAMIBAYASHI
Secretary General, "Our Seed Declaration" Office, Japan
Yasushi KUROI
Independent Writer, Japan
Nobuyoshi OKAZAKI
Executive, Osaka Pal Consumers Cooperative, Japan
Yukie SATO
Member of a citizens' coalition for WSSD, Sendai (Insurance firm employee), Japan
Shirou SUGITA,
Plantgenetist, Japan
Hitoshi TANAKA
Executive, Public workers Union Chapter, agricultural extension official, Japan
Hidefumi SUZUKI
Agricultural Extension worker, Japan
Hideko TOMITA
Local government employee, Japan
Yoetsu SASAKI
Miyagi Prefecture Food and Agriculture Network, Japan
Apr 3, 2002
APL condemns the Tariff Commission and calls for public review of country’s WTO commitments and other trade arrangements
The Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL) condemned the Tariff Commission (TC) for failing to protect the public interest after deciding last March 15, 2002 to recommend the non-imposition of safeguards on imported cement. The decision comes at a time when workers are reeling from massive retrenchments and the government is loosing millions of pesos in revenues from the cement importers. Despite huge profits, the four biggest importers (TCC Cement Corp., Cohaco Trading, Batumbakal Trading, and NGC Land Corp.) paid only a dismal sum of P951,433 taxes to the government in 2000.
The local cement manufacturers suffered staggering net losses of P5 billion in 1999 and P7.5 billion in 2000. Worse, for the first two months of 2002, a total of 8,000 workers have lost their jobs and will continuously affect about 24,000 more if the government continues not to heed the call of the local cement sectors. The APL asked the DTI to exert all efforts to ensure that the Trade and Related Matters Committee of the Cabinet decide in favor of imposing tariff protection to the local cement industry on the condition that the job security of cement industry workers are solidly guaranteed.
The intensifying and unregulated dumping of imported cement and other foreign products in the Philippines was the result of our continued adherence to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ‘free market policy.’ However, since the advanced countries dominate the world market, countries from the Global South like the Philippines would certainly not benefit from the trade liberalization regime that the WTO espouses. Thus, the APL is asking the government to call for a public review of the country’s position on the WTO on the basis of its effectiveness in addressing poverty alleviation and promotion of sustainable development.
The local cement manufacturers suffered staggering net losses of P5 billion in 1999 and P7.5 billion in 2000. Worse, for the first two months of 2002, a total of 8,000 workers have lost their jobs and will continuously affect about 24,000 more if the government continues not to heed the call of the local cement sectors. The APL asked the DTI to exert all efforts to ensure that the Trade and Related Matters Committee of the Cabinet decide in favor of imposing tariff protection to the local cement industry on the condition that the job security of cement industry workers are solidly guaranteed.
The intensifying and unregulated dumping of imported cement and other foreign products in the Philippines was the result of our continued adherence to the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) ‘free market policy.’ However, since the advanced countries dominate the world market, countries from the Global South like the Philippines would certainly not benefit from the trade liberalization regime that the WTO espouses. Thus, the APL is asking the government to call for a public review of the country’s position on the WTO on the basis of its effectiveness in addressing poverty alleviation and promotion of sustainable development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)