Welcome to BASE21

WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha, held from November 9th to 14th, succeeded in agreeing to the final declaration due to one day extension of its original planned schedule. Michael Moore, Secretary General of WTO, thanked the representatives for "saving the WTO", and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick crowed that they had "overcome the stain of Seattle." The New Round, renamed as the 'Doha Development Agenda' has much significance in the inauguration itself despite its ambiguity. One major significance is that imperialist countries succeeded in papering over the legitimacy crisis of the WTO, increased by internal and external protests since the Seattle Ministerial conference in 1999. In other words, imperialist countries accomplished what they wanted by pacifying the demands of Third World countries effectively on both political and rhetorical level. In this context, stating that the final declaration is a balanced agreement between the developing countries and developed countries is a superficial perspective - one that does not recognize the essence of the matter.

The Six Main issues of Doha

In Doha, there were six debating points between developing countries and developed countries - agriculture, TRIPs, WTO rules (anti-dumping etc.), environment, implementation and Singapore issues(investment, competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation). Agriculture was one of the most controversial issues, as it was at the Seattle Ministerial Conference. Developing countries demanded in Doha, the creation of a Development Box clause and stop to the dumping of food on world markets. However, transnational agricultural corporations and imperialist countries moderated their demands by adopting a generalized expression of 'reduction of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies'. Additionally, the EU succeeded in adding the words 'without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations', which could lead to another dispute.

The most highlighted issue in the context of 'review and renegotiation on existing WTO agreements' was related to the TRIPs agreement. A separate declaration on 'TRIPs and Public Health' was adopted, and it is being considered as 'half victory' for developing countries and NGOs. With this adoption, developing countries can now seek, at least, a waiver on patents on grounds of protecting public health. However, this is only a 're-interpretation' of the existing text, not an amendment. And it has no legally binding force. Therefore it is not as good as it looks.

Concerning implementation, developing countries have raised the issue very strongly since Seattle. Specifically, developing countries demanded the full implementation of the agreement in Uruguay Round which demanded a phasing out of textile quotas by the year 2005. However, they failed to get an explicit reference to it due to fierce resistance from the US.

As for WTO rules, anti-dumping which US had until now opposed strongly was put on the table.[1] However, it seems almost impossible for the Agenda to reach an agreement in substantially amending the related existing rules or seriously renegotiating them, because the Doha mandate states that such negotiations will preserve the "basic concepts, principles and effectiveness of these Agreements, their objectives and instruments."

The four 'Singapore Issues' which had been pushed mainly by EU and Japan, have been put off for two years until the fifth ministerial meeting, on the basis that a decision should be taken "by explicit consensus" on modalities of negotiation at that meeting. However, it is still uncertain whether negotiations on these issues will actually be able to begin after the fifth ministerial because of the different interpretations of each side on the added phrase, "by explicit consensus". India, which pushed for the expression, claims that it must be the precondition for negotiations to begin, while the EU does not agree. Therefore, disputes among member countries will take place again on whether these issues should be negotiated as part of the New Round at the Fifth Ministerial Conference.

A new agenda that was agreed to be negotiated in Doha was the 'Environment Issue'. Despite strong protests from developing countries, the EU succeeded in putting three specific issues on the table: the relationship between WTO rules and specific trade obligations laid out in Multilateral Environmental Agreements(MEAs); procedures for regular information exchanges between MEA secretariats and relevant WTO committees; reduction or elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers on environmental goods and services. Among the three, the second is not an agenda for negotiation but a recommendation for information exchange and the third is actually an agenda for another table, such as agreements on goods and services. So the so-called 'Environment Issue', as an independent issue, refers only to the first one.

GATS, which has been negotiated since 2000 as a 'built-in agenda' together with AOA, was one of the most uncontroversial issues, enough for the phrase "members are satisfied with the results of the first negotiation" to have come out between developing countries and imperialist countries, despite its disastrous impact on ordinary people. This may be due to the fact that the agreement on services decide on the extent of market liberalisation through listing up of requests and offers, providing a relatively wider range of opportunities for developing countries compared to other agreements. Also, the issue of 'patents on life-forms' within the TRIPs agreement was not highlighted in Doha, unlike in Seattle, 1999. In conclusion, Doha Development Agenda includes nine areas : agriculture, services, market access for non-agricultural products, TRIPs, implementation, trade and environment, WTO rules(including anti-dumping and subsidy rules), Dispute Settlement Understanding, and relationship between regional trade agreements and the WTO. Amongst these issues, Agreements on agriculture and services have incorporated follow-up negotiations which had started in early 2000, and market access for non-agricultural products and WTO rules including anti-dumping was actually an improvement and clarification of existing WTO agreements. Thus it is the issue of trade and environment that can be considered as a genuine 'new issue' in the New Round.

Backgrounds to Launching of Doha Agenda and its meaning

The WTO succeed in reaching an agreement in Doha, mainly because disputes among imperialist countries had been adjusted towards a common strategic aim - that is, the launching of the New Round as a solution for the legitimacy crisis of the WTO system, and a way to paper over the internal, external protests against the WTO. Concerns on the deepening of uncertainty in multilateralism and the WTO system that had come from the collapse of the Seattle Ministerial Conference led to the agreement for the Doha Agenda. Members, especially among imperialist countries, shared a common view that the inauguration itself, whatever scopes or means, is imperative for saving the WTO system from increasing challenges. Added to this condition, global economic recession and the 'War on Terrorism' being led by the US seemed to have played a certain role in attaining consensus for the Doha Agenda. "We are made to feel that we are holding up the rescue of the global economy if we don't agree to a New Round here", said Dr. Richard Bernal, a Jamaican delegate.[2] This remark reveals how much the delegates of developing countries were pressurized in Doha. And the 'War on Terrorism' arm-twisted representatives in agreeing to the formula 'trade = freedom and prosperity' and 'terrorism = anti-freedom and anti-prosperity'. As a result, there was an implicit implication that opposition and criticisms to the New Round would be equated with supporting terrorism and opposing freedom for all people.

There have been conflicts around the issue of launching the WTO New Round between imperialist countries and the Third World countries as well as among imperialist countries themselves. Fundamental point at issue between imperialists and Third World countries was "which should be given priority - review and renegotiation on the existing WTO agreements or expansion and deepening of the WTO system?" Third World countries claimed that new multilateral trade negotiations should be focused on the area of 'review and renegotiation on the existing agreement', based on the fact that so-called 'free trade' system had resulted in unequal benefits. Moreover, developing countries made complaints that 'Special and Differential Measures' for developing countries that had been promised in the Uruguay Round have hardly been implemented during the last 6 years since the launching of the WTO[3]. On the other hand, imperialist countries have demanded further acceleration of trade and investment liberalisation through expansion and strengthening of the WTO system, and among them there have been conflicts over the concrete methodology. While the US prefers the form of further intensive liberalisation of existing agreements including agriculture, non-agricultural products and services, EU and Japan prefer the form of introduction of new issues including investment, competition policy and transparency on government procurement into the WTO framework. Whatever the methodology, it is certain that both ways are fundamentally aimed at acceleration of free trade and investment through the WTO system, while ignoring completely the demands of developing countries and world peoples for 'complete evaluation on impacts of WTO and free trade system, and opposition to expansion of the WTO agenda and further liberalisation'. Looking at the Doha Agenda from this light, the imperialists seemed to have consensus on a 몊tatus quo + ? strategy, where, politically considering the resistance in and outside the WTO from developing countries and social movements, they have decided to concentrate accelerating liberalisation of existing areas instead of incorporating new issues in the WTO system.[4]

Three Points to be Considered in Organising Future Anti-WTO Alliances and Struggles

Imperialist countries, including the US, have succeeded in inaugurating the 'Doha Agenda', pacifying both internal and external resistance against the WTO regime through consolidation of China and Taiwan as new members and papering over the crises within the WTO. However, because it was merely a 'temporary papering over', the structural contradiction of the WTO regime and the global 'free trade' system will inevitably only worsen. This lies in the fact that the WTO regime fundamentally acts only in the interests of developed countries and transnational capital, while systematically excluding the Third World and the people from the so-called 'benefits of free trade'. It is clear that unless these fundamental inequalities are resolved, resistance in and outside of the WTO regime will not disappear. However, there must be a detailed analysis on the meanings and prospects of future anti-WTO alliances after the launching of 'Doha Agenda'. The significance and objectives of the anti-WTO alliance must be re-established, and thought in terms of expanding and strengthening the internationalist frontier against neo-liberal globalisation. To this end, the anti-WTO alliance must take the following three points into consideration: 1) The 'status quo + a' strategy of the imperialist countries and its implications on anti-WTO struggles, 2) Prospects of solidarity with governments of the Third World, 3) Overcoming the debate between social movements in the North and South on the issue of the 'social clause' and forming true solidarity.

1) Imperialist countries, including the US, will 'strengthen' the WTO regime through a 'status quo + a' strategy, while at the same time reinforcing its weaknesses (for example, the incompleteness of the WTO system in fully promoting liberalization of investment and providing protective measures for foreign investors) through much more fervent promotion of 'bilateral or regional FTAs'. Already the US is expediting negotiations for Free Trade Agreement of the Americas(FTAA) to be launched in 2005, while the EU seeks to expand into Eastern Europe and institutionalize itself. Japan has signed a FTA with Singapore, and just recently on 22nd December, finalized the text on a BIT with Korea. It is also pushing for BITs and FTAs with Mexico and others. These regionalisation projects are being promoted to protect the interests of the ruling class from the negative results of neo-liberal globalisation, and acts as a sort of a safety measure during times of structural recession and opacity of world economy. The Doha Ministerial Conference consistently emphasizes in the final declaration, the importance of the WTO as the 'only forum for the formation of rules and liberalisation of world trade', but this ironically recognizes that the tendencies for regionalisation have become a problem for the WTO system. Also, although the 'relationship between regional trade agreements and the WTO' is included in the Doha Agenda, by the time the Doha Agenda finishes its negotiations within three years as planned, most of the major regional and bilateral FTAs would have been signed, rendering the former ineffective. In this sense, anti-WTO struggles must collaborate closely with struggles against regional trade agreements.

2) The WTO regime has deepened the discrimination against developing countries even in the realm of 'acceleration of market liberalisation' that is the basic jurisdiction of the WTO. Through the WTO regime, developed countries have extended its access to markets in the developing countries in areas of service such as telecommunications, IT and finance, while blocking the access of developing countries by maintaining strong protectionist policies in the areas such as agriculture and sectors with high labour-concentration -the areas where developing countries are somewhat competitive. This situation allows us to understand the reason why Third World countries have consistently demanded for 'assessment and renegotiation of existing agreements' and 'implementation' in Seattle and Doha. However, resistance from the Third World is effectively being managed by imperialist countries. Apart from the slight political concessions made with the TRIPs Agreement, there is absolutely nothing that the developing countries have attained in Doha. This pertains to the bullying strategies of the imperialist countries and to the undemocratic decision-making process of the WTO, but also to the fact that the Third World countries were dispersed according to its individual needs. One high-ranking official from a developing country mentioned that "the unity we thought that existed no longer exists"[5], implying that the solidarity between the Third World countries was an 'easily breakable alliance', with individual interests and divide-and-rule strategies of imperialist countries. However, as shown with the struggles against the TRIPs Agreement during the Doha Ministerial, solidarity between developing countries and social movements do have some effect. Although the power of alliance between Third World governments and social movements was not enough to bring substantial results, it did bring about the effect of at least politically challenging the authority of the WTO, and confirming the need for Third World governments to maintain an alliance. Other areas where this sort of government-social movement alliance might be possible are the issue of 'patent on life forms' within the TRIPs Agreement -notorious for its justification on the systematic looting of Third World resources, though it did not receive much focus in Doha- and the issue of audio-visual services expected to be negotiated in future services talks. Concerning the former, there was an experience in forming a solidarity with the African group who demanded, in Seattle 1999, the exclusion of patent on life forms from the TRIPs Agreement, and the latter during the struggles against MAI where the French government was made to back off from the negotiating table through the demand for cultural exception. Developing from these experiences, international social movements must establish strategies on what issues to form an alliance with Third World (or specific) governments, what common objectives are to be shared and how the results of the alliance could be concentrated to strengthen the struggle against the WTO itself. However, it should not be forgotten that in many cases Third World governments, who are the ruling class in that country, cannot be thought of as reliant progressive forces, and that although the EU and some other rich countries seemingly support labour rights and environment protection they also support rules on investment and other policies that are destructive to workers and the environment. It is important to note that the possibilities for solidarity with Third World governments are indeed only possibilities, and in principle should be considered tactically in the process of deepening and expanding the international people's movement.

3) The most important thing in forming anti-WTO alliances is establishing solidarity between social movements in the North and South, based on true internationalism. The issue of the so-called 'social clause' linking 'trade and labour' and 'trade and environment' has historically been an obstacle in attaining this. Just taking a recent example, there were serious conflicts between social movements of North and South on the trade and labour issues raised by the Clinton administration in Seattle. In Doha, this argument did not really surface, since the major problem at hand was forming a common alliance between the North and South to attain exclusion of patents on medicines. This change of direction has provided a positive basis on which social movements of the North and South can form solidarity on a practical level, instead of falling into the 'trap' of the argument on whether labour and environment standards should be included in the WTO system. The struggle against the TRIPs agreement, as was manifested in Doha, is in line with the struggles against MAI. The core rationale from these struggles -'cultural exception' raised from the anti-MAI struggles, 'exclusion of patent on medicines' raised from the struggles against TRIPs, and 'exclusion of the agricultural agreement' from the WTO raised by international peasants organizations- must be acceded and expanded as the logics of general resistance against the WTO. As a long-term strategy, the objective must point towards gradual dismantlement of the WTO system, while forming strategies to actually weaken its power and authority. The core of this strategy, at the minimum level, is the demand for exclusion of those areas essential to humanity (agriculture, public services, education, culture, energy services, patent on life forms, patent on medicines etc.) from the principles of free trade and the WTO system. An agreement on this strategy within the international social movement is of great importance. It is now time for social movements of the North and South both, to consolidate an internationalist stance, and re-equip the frontier of struggle against the WTO regime. [PICIS]

________________________________________________________________________________

[1] "The choice may have been influenced by domestic politics: The textile industry is concentrated in Republican states, while the steel industry, one of the principal industries endangered by weakening of anti-dumping laws, is located mainly in Democratic states." (David Moberg, WTO Woes : Free-traders Agree to a New 'Round' of Talks in Qatar but Not Much Else, http://www.inthesetimes.com/)

[2] WTO Meeting in Doha, Qatar, http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Doha.asp

[3] Special compensatory measures to counteract the negative effects of trade liberalization on the net food-importing developing countries; dismantlement over ten years the system of quotas on developing country exports of textiles and garments to the North (Agreement on Textiles and Clothing); greater market access to developing country agricultural products and bringing down the high levels of state subsidization in EU and US, which was resulting in the massive grain dumping on Third World markets (Agreement on Agriculture)

[4] The only real 'new issue' that was adopted in Doha was the 'environment Issue.' But even the major part of this issue will be negotiated within existing agreements such as agreements on goods and services, as mentioned above.

[5] Daniel Pruzin & Gary G. Yerkey, WTO Member Nations Agree to Launch Development Round at Tough Talks in Doha, International Trade Daily, http://globalexchange.org/wto/ itd111501.html