Connie Fogal wrote: > > Report re WTO demo in Vancouver December 4,1999 > and > Summary of the views of Sergio Marchi, Canada’s Ambassador to the WTO, in > his description of “The Way Forward After Seattle” at a debriefing in > Vancouver BC Canada on Saturday, December 4, 1999 after the WTO meeting in > Seattle > > Despite only about 16 hours to organize, we created a respectable > demonstration and met Sergio Marchi as he arrived at the WTO debriefing > session in Vancouver before the Pacific Basin Economic Council. We were > about 35 people outside which matched the about 35 people inside. > > It is inappropriate to refer to Mr Marchi as Canada’s ambassador to the > WTO. Read his comments in the full text of his presentation which I will > distribute later, and you will see that he is really a WTO ambassador paid > for by Canadian tax dollars. Never shown to be one who understood his duty > to sovereignty or his nation, he now shows that his definition of > ambassadorship is equally devoid of such loyalty. > > Closed shop: Although the word was that one could get in with a fee of > $55.00 plus taxes, when a citizen tried it, he was told the session was > full. When two octogenarian citizens of Canada attempted entry, they were > told they were not allowed in, that the session was taking place on private > property, that they would be removed with security personnel or police if > they did not leave, and that neither the organizers, nor anyone else in the > session inside including Ambassador Marchi wished to speak to them or hear > from them. The octogenarians held their ground refusing to leave the > hallway until the meeting adjourned to lunch via a different door which > closed and at which were then posted two burly guards on each side. > > Fortunately, inside were at least four alternative media. I received copies > of the audio of the full session. Below, I summarize the presentation of > Sergio Marchi called The Way Forward after Seattle. I hope soon to > transcribe and post both the Marchi presentation as well as the > presentation of Canada’s assistant deputy minister of Trade and Economic > Policy, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Ottawa.. > > These presentations are very important. They speak to the leadership role > Canada is playing in driving the global trade agenda . They also depict the > very arrogance and betrayal attacked by the Defence of Canadian Liberty in > its lawsuit against our Federal government re the MAI, which lawsuit will > be back in court early in the new year. Of special note is the fact that > the text released for use by the ministers at the Seattle WTO meetings (we > are informed) is identical to the MAI. You have perhaps seen other e mail > re this point. We are following this up. > > Summary of Marchi’s presentation: > > Canada’s Minister of Trade, Pettigrew, and Minister of Agriculture, Van > Clief, made a difference in Seattle by the leadership role they played in > the two most difficult issues before the WTO- 1)the launching of > negotiations on Agriculture and 2) the implementation of the global agenda > by developing countries. The effort by both these ministers along with the > efforts of the Canadian team of officials from Ottawa and Geneva was first > class. > > I still very much believe in the mission of the WTO. The mission is a long > journey with ups and downs. Seattle was only one of the downs on the long > journey. There are two roads- one to Seattle, and one from Seattle. > > The Road TO Seattle: > The challenges came from: > > 1. The document that the WTO secretariat gave to the ministers for the > purposes of this ministerial.. It was too long, too divided on a number of > crucial issues and too bracketed. Too many countries approached the process > as if we were already pre-negotiating the negotiations in the text. This > was a document to launch a round, not to negotiate deep into the trade > forest. It was 32 pages long. > > 2. The lack of flexibility. There was too much advocacy for national > positions. There was no give and take and compromise. National positions > are fine at the front end, but what are you going to negotiate if you are > going to hug your own goal post. > > 3.There were a few issues that were the first among equals that set the > tone and the challenge. > A) Agriculture. Canada , U.S. and a host of developing countries > on one side who wanted a specific plan of action on agriculture, on export > subsidies, on trade distorting measures, on the ability to treat > agricultural products by rules like we treat other products by rules V.S. > the Europeans, Japanese, Koreans who did not want to hear anything about > that. Agriculture was one of the two mandated areas. The Latin American > countries were saying to the Europeans for example, if you do not do a > mandated negotiation on agriculture, how do you expect me to embrace a new > issue called investment? So there was a division. > B) Implementation. The developing countries were saying we did not > get what we thought we were getting from the Uruguay round and things are > not working the way you said they would, so let’s revisit those issues that > are crucial to us such as textile areas before you ask us to digest more > and embrace a new round. We want our agenda in Seattle as well. The > question became, is this implementation or renegotiation. > Agriculture and implementation were lynch pin issues. If we were > unable to unlock them, the other issues were not going to move. > C)Labour. The US president’s talk on trade sanctions and labour > standards had a chilling effect on the developing countries, 2/3 of whom > make up the WTO. Their questions were:(1) is it the business of a trade > organization to deal with labour standards, or is it the business of the > international labour organizations to do that? And, (2) this is another > form of protectionism. They were saying, this is a move to take away our > comparative advantage. The air was a little more than tense. > D) The loss of the WTO leadership of a partnership role between > the US and the Europeans. There has been an expectation from the > international community of (a) a clear American leadership on trade > liberalization and (b) a sense of cooperation between the Americans and the > Europeans- a shared agenda of scope. These elements were called into > question. There is an inward looking Congress. Trade is a great divide in > the US. There is no fast track. The Americans and Europeans were in a sense > almost rivals rather than partners. > E). The impact of the long race to replace Mr Ruggiero that > elected Mike Moore detracted energy and time and created wounds. > > But at the end of the day there was real progress on many key issues > including agriculture, implementation and services. The real enemy was the > clock. Madam Barchevsky banged the gavel to suspend for the time being. If > we had addressed the above issues earlier, we might not have run out of > time. But we are in much better shape than the headlines coming out of > Seattle say. > > Road Out of Seattle > There were three points made at the hour of suspension: > 1. The Director General is to consult all the members and all the > ambassadors and report back with the recommendations of re-engaging those > ministers for the purpose of launching. > > 2. Starting in January, because of the built in agenda of the Uruguay Round > , both Services and Agriculture will commence negotiations > > 3. The progress that we made in Seattle is an advancement of the text on a > host of issues from the text of October 19,1999. Those advancements shall > be frozen so that when we re -engage we do not go back to square one. We > will re-engage on the best progress made on the issues in Seattle. > > These are positive, immediate first steps from Seattle which I think we > need to recognize but which we need to divide into two areas- the immediacy > of post Seattle and the long term ramifications. > > 1.We must not engage in the blame game, but reflect on constructive matters > and the wider context.. > -We must keep present the larger context of what we are doing in > the WTO; > -We must remember the importance of our multilateral trading > system as a key component to a healthy international economy, to bring down > trade barriers and walls; > - We must remember the importance of making rules; > - We must remember the 50 year development of the GATT of the WTO in > contrast to having suspended 3 days of work in the life of a 50 year > organization. > > 2. We must engage the public. Perhaps globalization does create some > inhibitions and insecurities . But we should not allow people to turn the > WTO into some kind of international villain. There are those who say they > do not like the FTA or the NAFTA, nor the WTO. No problem. That is freedom > of expression. But we should ask those people what they do believe in. What > is their answer for my kids in this country economically speaking if 77% of > my economy and your economy at home is international if we do not believe > in either a multilateral or bilateral approach to the world. What is the > answer? We build a wall? A ghetto? We do not have enough free trade between > provinces for God’s Sake. So, we have to engage the public. We need to > remove the luxury of ideologizing, becoming an idealogue on trade. > > 3. We must look at the institution of the WTO, reforming it, improving it, > changing it looking at how we operate. The world of today is the > environment of the WTO. It has to change with the times as well. Can we see > the WTO as part of a global coherent solution to the challenges that we > confront? > Can we discuss labour without raising protectionism? I think so, but it > requires constructive engagement. > > In Geneva our task is to produce a document or negotiate a document. That > is what we do and we have to do it well. But I was struck as an ambassador > how little time we spend at the WTO thinking about the world outside the > WTO. The WTO should have a corporate plan if you will. It should be worried > about the WTO brand name. > > Canada has put together what I thought was a very good coherence proposal > which had survived as of last night still based on the premise that the WTO > is one major organization that tries to advance the cause of trade and > that in doing so should work in a more coherent way with the other major > entities whether it be the World Bank or the IMF or the ILO, but to do it > in a way that is complementary and not reinventing the wheel or being > indifferent to what other organizations are doing. What does the WTO bring > to the table as part of global governance. > > So, yes, we did feel disappointed about the suspension, that we were unable > to launch at this time, but in no way should we adopt a defeatist attitude, > or panicked approach. Trade will be a big part of Canada’s future. It will > help us define our role in the global village. I am a firm believer tha as > Canada becomes more even more successful in the trade game, that Canada’s > presence will become bigger as the world gets smaller. > > -end- > > DEFENCE of CANADIAN LIBERTY COMMITTEE/LE COMITÉ de la LIBERTÉ CANADIENNE > C/0 CONSTANCE FOGAL LAW OFFICE, #401 -207 West Hastings St., Vancouver, > B.C. V6B1H7 > Tel: (604)687-0588; fax: (604) 872 -1504 or (604) 688-0550;cellular(604) > 202 7334; > E-MAIL [EMAIL PROTECTED]; www.canadianliberty.bc.ca > > “The constitution of Canada does not belong either to Parliament, or to the > Legislatures; it belongs to the country and it is there that the citizens > of the country will find the protection of the rights to which they are > entitled” Supreme Court of Canada A.G. of Nova Scotia and A.G. of Canada, > S.C.R. 1951 pp 32
