----------
From: Bob Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:13:20 -0400
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: WTO Deadlocked, Geneva, Oct 12
Two messages from Martin Khor of the Third World Network
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [mai] Deadlock on Investment and Competition Issues in WTO
From: Martin Khor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Third World Network <www.twnside.org.sg>
TWN INFO SERVICE ON WTO ISSUES
Geneva 10 Oct 2001 1230pm
NEWS FROM GENEVA
from Martin Khor
DEADLOCK ON INVESTMENT AND COMPETITION ISSUES IN WTO
DEADLOCK ON INVESTMENT AND COMPETITION ISSUES IN WTO
DEADLOCK ON INVESTMENT AND COMPETITION ISSUES IN WTO
Yesterday there was an informal meeting in the WTO to discuss the
draft Ministerial Declaration paragraphs on investment and
competition. That declaration gave an option, whether to start
negotiations on these two issues, or whether to continue the work
of the working groups.
According to sources present at the meeting yesterday, there was
a big split down the middle among the WTO Members. The main
proponents of starting negotiations for agreements on investment
and competition were EU and Japan. The US was also in favour but
not major demandeurs. Most developing countries in Asia and
Africa opposed negotiations as rules in these areas would
infringe on government's rights to set national policies on
investment and competition and the agreements would tie the hands
of governments to regulate as they deem appropriate. Among those
who spoke against negotiations were Tanzania (for LDC countries),
India, Malaysia, Uganda.
The EU proposed that a plurilateral approach can be taken to the
two subjects (ie countries can choose whether to opt in or opt
out of the agreements). However there was wide opposition to
this, even from some countries that are in favour of
negotiations. Those who opposed this plurilateral approach said
WTO was a multilateral organisation and there would be systemic
problems if it started a range of agreements on a plurilateral
basis: there could thus be negative longterm implications.
Tanzania (speaking for LDC countries) said the LDCs had not yet
been able to analyse the impact of rules on these two subjects on
their countries and they are thus not ready to negotiate rules on
these areas.
These two issues are central to the debate on whether new and
non-trade issues should enter the WTO as subjects of new
agreements. Yesterday's meeting showed that the WTO members are
truly split down the middle on the issue and there is thus no
consensus.
A few countries have floated the idea that there should be
continuation of the study process in the working groups for two
years and then automatically switch to a negotiations by the time
of the 5th Ministerial meeting. However this is also bound to be
opposed by those who do not want negotiations.
With best wishes
Martin Khor
Third World Network
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:00:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [mai] Developing Countries speak in WTO on New Issues, Round
From: Martin Khor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: Third World Network <www.twnside.org.sg>
TWN Info Service on WTO Issues
Geneva 12 Oct 2001
During the on-going discussions at the WTO in preparation for the
4th Ministerial Conference, several developing countries, and
groupings of developing countries, have voiced their opposition
to the start of negotiations on "new issues." Several also voiced
their opposition to elements of a New Round being included in a
draft Ministerial Declaration that was issued on 26 September.
>From the speeches and statements made at the WTO General Council
informal meetings to discuss the draft Declaration, it would
appear that the majority of developing countries (especially in
Africa and Asia, and also some Central American and Caribbean
countries) are against the introduction of new multilateral rules
on the new issues. And they are also against the launch of a
broad-based New Round.
The following is a report prepared by Third World Network
containing extracts from the statements made by some of the
developing countries that voiced their opposition to new issues
and the new round when the WTO General Council met on 2-3
October.
The report was compiled by Cecilia Oh.
With best wishes
Martin Khor
Director, Third World Network
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: Please check our website for up to date information on the
WTO preparatory process towards the 4th Ministerial:
www.twnside.org.sg
-=-=-
Third World Network Report:
Responses To The Draft Ministerial Declaration:
Developing Country Positions On New Issues And The New Round
(Excerpts from statements made by the Ambassadors or senior
officials to the WTO General Council)
The following are extracts from the statements presented at the
WTO by the Ambassadors or senior officials of several developing
countries that expressed opposition to the launching of
negotiations on the "new issues" or "Singapore issues"
(investment, competition, transparency in government procurement,
trade facilitation) and to the establishment of elements of a New
Round. The statements were made during the informal WTO General
Council meeting held on 2-3 October 2001, to discuss the draft
Ministerial Declaration (dated 26 September 2001). These extracts
are taken from the written texts of the presentations that were
delivered. This report is compiled by the Third World Network.
INDIA:
...We have been clearly pointing out that we are not in a
position to commence negotiations with a view to make binding
rules in any one of these four areas. ... For us, these four
subjects have to be dealt with in the framework of the Singapore
Ministerial Declaration. A solemn commitment was given by our
major trading partners, to my Minister at Singapore that there
will be no pressure on us to negotiate rules in these areas and
as a compromise, my Minister was asked to accept a
non-prejudicial study programme with a clear stipulation that
negotiations will commence in these areas only when there is
'explicit consensus'. ... it is absolutely clear that there was
no consensus in favour of changing the study mode into
negotiation mode in respect of any one of these subjects.
... We have a major concern with regard to paragraphs 36 to 39
and 42. When I first glanced through your draft, I got the
impression that there was no 'round' in it. But subsequently,
when I looked at paragraphs 36 to 39 and 42, all ideas, concepts
and trappings which go to make a 'round' have been included in
these paragraphs. We felt these paragraphs closely mirror the
Punta Declaration. ...
... We have an uncomfortable feeling that reference to a single
undertaking in the Draft might be a pointer towards inclusion of
new subjects, a prospect which we do not look forward to.
Moreover, your paragraph 42 is so ambiguous and open ended that
many developing countries whose memories about Uruguay Round are
still fresh genuinely feel threatened by this paragraph.
... We suggest that paras 36 to 39 and 42 in the text be deleted.
Instead there should be a simple text indicating that
negotiations and other items of work envisaged in the Work
Programme will be conducted in the respective existing bodies in
the WTO under the overall supervision of the General Council. We
would also like to state that in considering the balance in the
results of the Work Programme, the currently existing imbalances
should also be taken into consideration so that final results
ensure overall balance for developing countries, taking into
account both the existing obligations and the new obligations
arising out of the Work Programme.
INDONESIA:
... On the new issues initiated in Singapore, I would like to
state that Indonesia cannot accept any language in the
Declaration that makes references to negotiations on these
issues. Consequently, Indonesia cannot accept paragraphs 18
(investment), 20 (competition policy), 22 (transparency in
government procurement) and 23 (trade facilitation). As far as
paragraphs 19 and 21 are concerned, Indonesia is not comfortable
with the existing draft. However, Indonesia is prepared to agree
on the proposal for the extension for the work in the working
groups provided that those work will be focused on addressing
various concerns of those members who have difficulties with the
proposed agreements including the examination of the potential
cost of any possible agreements.
... As you may recall in the informal meeting in June, my
delegation stated that paragraphs under organization and
management of work will depend on the decision to be taken at the
fourth Ministerial Conference in Doha, specifically with regards
to the proposal for future WTO negotiations. Therefore it would
not be possible for my delegation to make any comment prejudging
the outcome of the Doha Ministerial Conference. In our view, at
this stage these paragraphs should be put in bracket. ...
JAMAICA:
... Given the discussions on the new issues have taken place so
far in the preparatory process, we believe that the alternative
language you have set out in paragraphs 19 and 20 are the more
desirable basis for moving forward.
On trade facilitation ... Jamaica seriously doubts whether
binding commitments are a realistic goal. The discussions to
which we were party did not suggest that this would be a basis
for consensus. ...
...Paragraphs 36-42 introduces a number of structures and
concepts regarding the Work Programme, which we have encountered
in another context, in another process and we will have to
contemplate whether these are necessary and appropriate in the
context of what is only a Work Programme, and in light of the
institutional structures ushered in with the WTO. ...
KENYA:
... On the new issues or Singapore issues, Kenya believes that
starting negotiations on these issues would not be appropriate.
... Kenya is concerned that multilateral rules in these proposed
new issues will lead to further obligations that will again limit
our development options and prospects. We are therefore, not in a
position to agree to start negotiations on these new issues.
Instead, the work of the working groups on the four Singapore
issues should continue. ...
On the section on the organization of the Work Programme, we find
that the way it has been drafted implies that the future work of
the WTO will be organized around the modalities of a New Round.
These elements include ending all negotiations by a certain date,
forming a Trade Negotiations Committee, the single undertaking
and possible additions of negotiating topics at the next
Ministerial Conference.
... The experience of the comprehensive Uruguay Round shows that
developing countries were disadvantaged by a broad based Round of
negotiations with single undertaking. We have yet to recover from
the negative effects of previous Round and the seemingly
entrenched problems of implementation ... Kenya is therefore, not
in a position to agree to a broad based round.
LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES (LDCS): STATEMENT BY TANZANIA ON BEHALF
OF THE LDCS
... LDCs cannot agree with the parts of the Draft relating to
the Singapore issues. The LDC Ministers indicated that the four
'Singapore issues' were not yet ripe for negotiations as the
issues were complex and the LDCs were not able to fully
understand the implications for them. Therefore the LDCs'
position on the sections on new issues is as follows: [On trade
and investment]: We are unable to accept para 18. We prefer the
option of para 19. ...
[On trade and competition]: We are unable to accept para 20. We
would rather prefer the option of para 21. [On transparency in
government procurement]: We are unable to accept para 22. LDCs
are not prepared to launch negotiations in this area and hence
the study process in the working groups has to continue.
[On trade facilitation] We are unable to accept para 23. We are
not prepared to launch negotiations in this area. ...
With regard to the last section on 'organisation and management
of the Work Programme, paras 36-42 ... our Ministers in Zanzibar
were very clear that LDCs are not in a position to undertake
broad based negotiations involving many new issues due to lack of
capacity to negotiate and implement new commitments. What we
interpret in this section is that we are preparing for a broad
based programme of negotiations with the inclusion of a number of
new issues for which we are not prepared as already indicated.
...
MALAYSIA:
... In all fairness, the Chair has forwarded two options on the
issues of investment and competition. But the fact remains that
the options are in direct opposition to each other. We would
again, on this occasion, stress that Malaysia cannot support the
start of negotiations on these issues. We wish to point out that
there were also fundamental difficulties expressed by
delegations, including my own, as to the necessity of starting
negotiations on transparency in government procurement and trade
facilitation. These have not been reflected in the draft. We
would have preferred alternative texts that would give a fair
reflection of where positions differ.
... Any effort to insist the inclusion of new issues to be part
and parcel of the agenda of the New Round will only prolong the
stalemate and will not allow for the consensus in Doha for the
launch of a New Round.
PAKISTAN:
... There is no consensus among Members on starting negotiations
on Singapore issues. ... We therefore cannot agree on commencing
any negotiations until the study phase is over.
... Paragraph 37: The overall conduct of the negotiations should
be supervised by the General Council. There is no need to create
a Trade Negotiation Committee.
Paragraph 38: Para 38 be deleted for the time being. We can
discuss it once the scope of the agenda has been finalized. ...
SRI LANKA:
... The Draft Declaration in effect launches a new broad round
although a number of regional meetings held recently, including
South East Association for Regional Cooperation - SAARC held in
New Delhi, have expressed concern on launching a new broad round.
On Singapore issues namely relationship between Trade and
Investment, Trade and Competition Policy, Transparency in
Government Procurement and Trade Facilitation, that is paragraph
18 to 23, my delegation wishes to reiterate its position that we
have difficulty in agreeing to negotiations on these issues for
binding commitments and our position is that educational and
analytical work in the Working Groups/Committees should continue.
We also believe that the word 'focused analytical work' referred
to in paragraph 19 & 20 should be clarified.
... We support the view that there is no need to have a Trade
Negotiating Committee. Therefore, we support the view that
paragraph 36, 39 and 42 in the Text be deleted. ...
STATEMENT BY ZIMBABWE ON BEHALF OF THE AFRICA GROUP
... We also wish to see a balanced treatment of all the new
issues. For instance, there is need to present options for all
the new issues and not just on Trade and Investment, and
Interaction Between Trade and Competition Policy. ...
Regarding the section dealing with Organisation and Management of
the Work Programme (paras 36-42), our view is that we defer
consideration of this section until such time as we have agreed
on the elements on the Work Programme. ...
EGYPT:
(As reported in SUNS #4981, October 5, 2001, 'Draft declaration
work to be moved forward, ignoring objections', article by C.
Raghavan)
'... Egypt complained that the level of ambition was "still
high". All proposals for negotiations (government procurement and
trade facilitation) had been included irrespective of the level
of support among the membership. Alternatives should have been
proposed on issues where there were strong disagreements. Both
the discussions in Geneva, and at Mexico city meeting, it was
clear that there was no consensus to bring forward the new issues
for negotiations, The present draft presented a broad, but
imbalanced programme. ... On Singapore issues, Egypt wanted the
current study programme to be listed and proposed as
alternatives....'
HONDURAS AND DOMINICAN REPUBLIC:
With respect to the trade and investment and the trade and
competition policy, we are of the view that the working groups
have not yet conclude their studies and this must continue, but
this must not lead to the launch of negotiations in the future.
Finally we find it surprising that the text in the section
relating to the Organisation and Management and the Programme of
Work are being launched as a single undertaking without there
being at the moment a consensus in the subject and the
negotiations, and without this negotiation being the preference
of many members of the WTO.
[Unofficial translation of statement dated 2 Oct, from the
original in Spanish]
UGANDA:
As regards the Singapore issues, our Ministers stated that these
are complex and not yet ripe for Negotiations. Therefore the
current study process should continue until the full implications
are known and well understood. We therefore do not accept para 18
on negotiations on investment and para 20 on negotiations on
competition. We support the option indicated in paras 19 and 22
which state that the study process should continue. On the other
Singapore issues namely transparency in government procurement
and trade facilitation, we believe that the study process should
continue.
Our approach to the section on the future work programme (para 36
to 42) is guided by what LDC Ministers agreed to in Zanzibar. The
Ministers took the view that the scope of future multilateral
trade negotiations will have to take into account the inability
of LDCs to participate effectively in negotiations on a broad
agenda and to implement new obligations given their limited
capacity to do so. The section contains all the elements of a
comprehensive New Round which encompass the new issues with a
possibility of more being added later together with a single
undertaking. It is also suggested that a Trade Negotiating
Committee be formed for this purpose as was the case in the
Uruguay Round.
The experience of the Uruguay Round cautions us of the dangers of
taking once again the road of a broad based new Round. This is
especially so when implementation issues of the last Round have
not yet been resolved and many members have indicated that they
are not ready to engage in a broad agenda containing new issues.
Given the role of the WTO as a permanent negotiating forum, There
is no need for establishing a Trade negotiating Committee. We
propose that the elements of the work program to be agreed to in
Doha will be carried out in the relevant bodies of the WTO and
these be supervised by the General Council which will report back
to the 5th Ministerial Conference.
ZAMBIA:
We share the view with many developing countries that the draft
is disappointing as it did not take into account the interests of
developing countries... On the Singapore issues, we cannot agree
to negotiations either in investment, competition, government
procurement or trade facilitation. Therefore we cannot accept
para 18 or para 20 or para 22 or para 23. We would like the draft
to change to accommodate our view that negotiations should not
start and instead the study process should continue in the
respective working groups. This option should be made available
for all areas on new issues.
To subscribe to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following command
in the body of your email message:
subscribe adhoc-l (your email address)
............................................
Bob Olsen Toronto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Capitalism is war
............................................
