WTO: TNCs versus the people (Part 5) A better world is possible
The fourth ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation is taking place as "The Guardian" goes to press. It is being held at Doha in Qatar from November 9-13. On November 9 a Global Union's Day of Action, organised by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) and its affiliates took place. The World Federation of Trade Unions and World Confederation of Labour asked their affiliates to join the protests. by Anna Pha The trade union actions are part of global protests against the WTO, organised by NGOs, trade unions, environmental, peasant and many other groups around the world. Actions took place in Aotearoa (NZ), Argentina, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, across Europe, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Korea, Japan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nigeria, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, the United States, Australia and other countries. "Regrettably the WTO, with the IMF and the World Bank, has perpetuated the subjugation of developing countries in the South of the world, through exclusion and sidelining their economies, while reinforcing the domination of the developed industrialised countries of the North", said a statement from the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU). "This has resulted in a huge gap in wealth distribution between the North and the South. The WTO has often forced rules on developing countries that have led to the destruction of their industries." COSATU is using the actions to raise public awareness of the impact of globalisation on the economies and workers in developing countries and to link it with their campaign against the South African Government's privatisation drive. A number of international networks and movements have been campaigning particularly hard on the internet leading up to the WTO meeting with information and activities. A web site that has caused the WTO considerable angst and which is noteworthy for its honesty and transparency (something the WTO could aspire to) is (http://www.gatt.org). Looking very much like the official WTO website, using the WTO's logo and pictures of WTO General Secretary Mike Moore, it speaks honestly about the WTO's policies and their outcomes. It derisively sings the virtues of hunger and the benefits of the ever-increasing power of the world's mightiest "citizens". It deplores the anti-globalisation actions of protestors and says that the purpose of the WTO is to "broaden and enforce free trade". One of the best known websites is the "Our World Is Not for Sale" site, which issued the "WTO: shrink or sink "declaration calling on Governments to take steps to limit the negative impacts of the WTO. In Australia, the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, which involves over 50 unions and community groups, has sponsored a seminar, public rally and band night in Sydney this week. Australian unions are organising a "Fair Trade not Free Trade" rally in Sydney as "The Guardian" goes to press, under the slogan of "Stop corporate globalisation". About 1000 delegates from the International Metalworkers' Federation World Congress are attending. A Qatar solidarity week is also being organised in Western Australia. In Canada there are caravans travelling around the country to join with actions being held nation-wide. In France, one of the events is a festive funeral of the WTO: "Let's bury the WTO before it buries all of us!". In Germany, "Our world is not for sale" actions took place in more than 20 cities. Hundreds of thousands took part in actions in India. There were actions in 100 town squares all over Italy. In Japan, the trade union body RENGO organised street campaigns against poverty, oppression, inequality, child labour, terrorism and discrimination. In India two former Prime Ministers and representatives of the two main communist parties were amongst the many speakers at a massive rally in New Delhi which was organised by the Indian People's Campaign against WTO. The possibility for actions in Doha was severely restricted by its location, the very heavy "security" and restriction of peoples' rights. But when the protestors speak of security they have other things in mind other than rows of police and troops, tear gas and baton charges. By "economic security" they mean full employment and adequate wages. They call for the cancellation of Third World debt as a step towards the elimination of poverty in the least developed countries. In calling for "political security" they want peoples' democratic rights and the sovereign rights of governments to take precedence over the "rights" of transnational corporations. By "social security" they mean that governments, not markets, should be responsible for providing health, education, welfare and other essential services to the people, and that these also take primacy over the profits of transnational corporations. By "ecological security" they mean that international agreements on the environment take precedence over WTO rules and the demands of corporations. By "food security" they mean governments taking responsibility for the supply of quality food at fair prices. By "peace security" they mean the settlement of international disputes through political and not military means. They want an end to the massive expenditure on weapons that is fuelling the international arms race and crippling government budgets. But the official agenda and the two draft declarations prepared for the WTO meeting are only concerned to guarantee the profits and "rights" of the transnational corporations (TNCs). The draft statements for consideration by the 142-member countries of the WTO were released less than 10 days before the beginning of the Doha meeting, in violation of the constitution of the WTO. This gave government representatives little time to discuss its content with their governments or technical experts, let alone discuss it with other member countries. The declarations conveyed a dishonest and deceptive impression that there was already agreement and that the views expressed in them were overwhelmingly supported by member countries. The drafts were not the result of discussion and consensus and aroused much anger among Third World countries. Last July, a meeting of the least developed countries ((49) LDCs) was held in Zanzibar to prepare a common position on the issues before the Doha meeting. But the views of these countries were ignored. Speaking on their behalf at a WTO General Council meeting held on October 31,Tanzanian Ambassador Ali Mchumo said: "... this is not an agreed text in any part at this stage ... Certainly we did not expect all our proposals to be accepted in toto ... but we did expect our major proposals or reservations to be reflected, even if they were to be put in square brackets or as separate options to be considered." (Note: It is normal practice to place different views or options in square brackets in such draft documents.) Zambian Ambassador B M Bowa speaking for the African Group of (41) countries said it was: "not just that our participation has so far not yielded any material benefits, but indications are that they may never materialise, and will continue to be perpetually marginalised". "Our goal has been to highlight some of the serious problems which LDCs are currently facing, with a view to finding workable solutions. However, as this text clearly shows, our priorities and needs continue to be largely ignored. "In the text before us", said Mr Bowa, "what we have been referring to as the new issues, that is, trade and investment, trade and competition, transparency in government procurement, trade facilitation and market access for non-agricultural products are presented as items up for negotiation. But ... this does not reflect the wish of a significant proportion of the membership. "Our position on this has been, and continues to be clear - we are simply not in a position to undertake new negotiations in these areas." The final drafts that followed these discussions continued to ignore these and other Third World responses. It was a deceitful and cunning document, described by one diplomat as 75 per cent US and 25 per cent EU. Its language is long-winded and indirect and is, no doubt, aimed to confuse and mislead. Despite the repeated objections of Third World countries the drafts include new issues such as investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation. There is also a proposal for negotiations in the area of the environment. There are great dangers for developing countries in all of these issues. The proposals on investment place no obligations on foreign investors, but many obligations on the governments and people of the country where this investment is being carried out. In practice, serious constraints are imposed on government policy options for development in Third World countries. It extends the concept of "multi-lateral trade relations" well beyond trade paving the way for the WTO to take control over the taxation, interest rates, currency, social policies and labour relations of independent countries. They would come under the thumb of the WTO, just as these issues have been removed from government control in European Union countries. This would leave developing countries with few means to ensure job creation, industry development and the ability to meet social needs in areas such as health, education, drinking water, electricity and housing. They would have virtually no control over their own destiny. Likewise, the inclusion of negotiations on competition policy raises serious dangers for governments of all countries, in particular Third World countries. Again, the provisions in the drafts fail to place obligations on the transnational corporations. Only governments are subjected to rules and the loss of sovereignty. Competition policy hinders the development of the public sector and leads to privatisation and domination of industry by foreign TNCs as it has already done in Australia. There is strong opposition to the inclusion of so-called "transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation". The former would be a step allowing foreign TNCs to monopolise the area of government purchases. The statements do nothing to prevent the dumping of subsidised products from developed countries into the markets of Third World countries. The text fails to ban the patenting of life, biological and microbiological processes. It fails to give primacy to the health, lives and well being of people over the profits of pharmaceutical corporations. The inclusion of environmental issues means in practice that the major developed countries would be able to use environmental reasons to restrict market access to their economies thereby discriminating against Third World countries. All the propositions included in the statements before the meeting in Doha are those being pushed by the major developed countries. The many issues put forward by the Third World were not included in the declarations in any meaningful way. The interests of Third World countries are buried in rhetoric such as the statements "we are committed to redressing the marginalisation of the least developed countries", "we recall the commitments", "we shall continue to work", "we strongly reaffirm our commitment", etc, etc. None of these statements are backed up by any concrete propositions. They are empty words, meaning nothing. The concerns of the Third World Countries are reflected in the demands of the NGOs, trade unions and other groups protesting during the Doha meeting and before that at Seattle and at the many other protest actions against corporate globalisation. Third World countries are under considerable pressure to accept a new round of negotiations on new issues. The pressure was stepped up in recent months as Third World countries persisted with their demand that the WTO implement commitments made by the developed countries in the past <B>before" they would agree to discussion of new issues. These countries are being threatened with loss of aid, denial of IMF funding, imposition of high interest rates on debts and all manner of attempts to buy off their leaderships. More recently there is an even more sinister threat hanging over their heads -- military intervention. In line with his "you are for us or against us" stand, US President Bush warned any countries thinking of bucking the US line that "there is a price to be paid, and it will be paid". He was addressing the UN General Assembly in New York on November 10, at the same time as government representatives were debating the draft WTO declarations. In a very thinly veiled warning President Bush linked the question of promoting trade to anti-terrorism. But, as the protestors say, "A better world is possible but not through the WTO and not by War". For updates and further reading visit the Third World Network, TWO Watch or Indy Media websites: http:/www.twnside.org.sg http://www.indymedia.org http://www.twowatch.org **************************************************************** -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archived at http://www.cat.org.au/lists/leftlink/ Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
