MTNS’ TECHNICAL PROGRESS MASKS LACK IN SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS.

Dec 18, 1987

MTNS’ TECHNICAL PROGRESS MASKS LACK IN SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS.

GENEVA DECEMBER 16 (IFDA/CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN) – Third World countries voiced their concern Wednesday at lack of sufficient attention to their long-standing concerns in the Uruguay Round negotiations, and said technical progress in individual negotiating groups should not lead to complacency.

A number of countries also felt that the initial phase of work would have to be carried forward, particularly in establishing a common negotiation basis and agreeing on techniques and modalities of negotiations.

In voicing these concerns at the meeting of the Uruguay Round Group of Negotiations on Goods (GNG), Third World countries also underscored the importance of confidence-building measures through concrete trade-policy actions of governments, and for parallel progress on monetary and financial issues and problems of the world economy.

The industrialised countries, particularly the U.S. and Japan, seemed to take the line that the technical work in the initial phase was over, and participants should move to the negotiations.

The GNG, which is mandated to supervise and conduct the Uruguay Round GATT MTNS in goods, met to hear progress reports from the chairmen of the 14 negotiating groups as well as assessments from several delegations.

A further meeting was scheduled for mid-February for a "stock-taking" exercise, after governments in the capitals have been able to study the outcome in the various negotiating groups.

Meeting under the chairmanship of the GATT director-general, Arthur Dunkel, the GNG agreed to continue for another year the incumbent chairmen of the 14 negotiating groups, with the stipulation that the GNG would review this at its first meeting in 1989.

Earlier, both Dunkel and several of the delegates spoke of the heavy responsibility of each individual chairman to facilitate consensus and "maintain balance, neutrality and objectivity and ensuring maximum transparency" in the work of the negotiating group.

According to GATT sources, there had been some rumblings and dissatisfaction among several participants over the way the chairmen of some of the negotiating groups had been functioning, but that after informal consultations it had been decided to continue them in office for another year, in the hope that they would draw necessary conclusions from Dunkel’s remarks.

A number of third world delegations voiced their concerns at the attempts in some groups to re-interpret the Punta del Este mandate, as well as failure to make progress on some of the long-standing problems of third world countries – access to markets, liberalisation of trade in tropical products, tariff escalations and non-tariff measures, safeguards, and textiles.

A number of countries were also critical of the overlap and crowding of formal and informal meetings of several negotiating groups, and the forced pace of meetings without enough time for capitals to reflect and convey their views to delegations.

In his summing-up, Dunkel reportedly noted the reminders about the events in the real world outside, and developments in the trading area and its relationship to the negotiations, as well as the need to work on the basis of the Punta del Este declaration in its entirety.

The negotiations were global and there was need for mutuality of advantage and equivalence of benefits to be kept in mind.

Dunkel also underscored the concerns expressed for full observance of the standstill and rollback commitments, and noted in this connection the report of the surveillance body of the "slippage" in regard to consultations and tabling plans for rollback.

Third world delegations, he noted, has reminded the GNG of their concerns and interests in the round, and the need for confidence-building measures, and sending "positive signals" to outside world.

Progress in the initial phase should not result in complacency, as enormous tasks lay ahead. In the further stages of negotiations, participants would need to listen to others and reconcile positions. There was also need for more liaisons between Geneva and capitals.

A great deal of ground had been covered in the initial phase, and there had been 160 submissions and proposals in the 14 negotiating groups.

In the future there was need for better balance between formal and informal meetings of negotiating groups, with greater flexibility and for fewer but longer meetings, and more time in between to allow for inputs from capitals.

While the negotiating groups would have more freedom to determine their calendar, it should be such as to provide a balance among groups. But the GNG would continue to co-ordinate and supervise the work of the negotiating groups, and meeting for this purpose at least thrice a year.

Earlier, India had said that with the negotiating groups finishing their work only last week, there had not been enough time for capitals to study and asses progress, and the GNG should schedule a stock-taking exercise in February. This was supported by Canada and Israel.

Dunkel announced that the GNG would meet for this purpose on February 18, 1988.

Singapore, speaking for Asian countries, underscored the need for confidence building measures through actual trade practices. The legitimate concerns of third world countries should be recognised and addressed, including in the areas of market access for their exports, particularly of tropical products.

Jamaica felt that an integral part of any mid-term review would be evaluation of results, and hence there was need for more specifics and concrete results before early agreements could be reached or applied provisionally.

Early agreements should reflect the agreement on effective application of differential and more favourable treatment (S and D) to third world countries.

While a number of proposals had been made in various groups, there had not been sufficient balance in the areas of tropical products and agriculture. There was also need for more coherence between work on subsidies and in agriculture.

Negotiations so far had not led to any reversal of protectionism or resistance. There was now greater need for stability and coherence in macro-economic policy-making, including monetary and financial fields, to ensure confidence in the Uruguay round negotiating process.

Mexico, while outlining liberalisation measures undertaken by it, supported the need for S and D treatment, as also for balanced progress and particularly on third world concerns.

Argentina drew attention to the deteriorating international economic environment and its adverse effects on the trading system. There was need to relate negotiations to the realities of the outside world, by ensuring strict adherence to the political commitments at Punta del Este.

India complained that there had been "somewhat forced" pace of work in the negotiating groups, and quantity of meetings could not be a substitute for quality.

India underscored the need for chairmen and groups functioning with "the highest objectivity, neutrality and respect for consensus, without which the negotiating process cannot be a success".

While there had been considerable "technical progress", in terms of significant elements of the Punta del Este mandate there had been no worthwhile progress, India complained.

India was also concerned at the tendency in some groups to extend the scope and mandate of negotiations beyond the common understandings at Punta del Este.

Drawing attention in this connection to negotiating groups on TRIPS and TRIMS, India said any differences of interpretation on the mandate and objectives would have to be settled by consensus. Unilateral attempts to reinterpret the negotiating mandate could only delay the negotiating process.

In the group on tropical products, an area of concern to third world countries and with a 25-year negotiating history, there were attempts to reinterpret the mandate in a manner that would undermine the very basis of negotiations. Also, some industrial countries were making their offers of concessions contingent on similar contributions by others including third world countries. This would be contrary to the very basis of the Uruguay round and its global nature, India warned.

There had also been no substantive progress in areas of traditional concern to the third world – safeguards, bringing agriculture and textiles trade back to GATT, and non-tariff measures. There had also been no substantial results on rollback.

The EEC endorsed the view there could be no unilateral reinterpretation of the negotiating objectives. The developments in the external monetary and financial environment underscored the importance of strict adherence to the political commitments on standstill and rollback.

There was need for specific and technical progress in each group, and the chairmen must keep in mind the need for balance, competition between progress to show progress should also be avoided, and the GNG must exercise overall control.

Chairmen of the negotiating groups, the EEC agreed, should maintain balance and impartiality, and search for consensus and ensure transparency.

Egypt endorsed the need for strict adherence to the Punta del Este mandates, and was concerned at tendency of some participants "to move back to their pre-Punta del Este positions".

Respect for political commitments, Nigeria said, was a necessary condition for success of the negotiations. There was reason to question observance of the commitments when one remembered the superfund levy, the omnibus trade bill (in the U.S. Congress), and decision of governments to accept panel reports only partially.

The standstill commitment was now becoming a farce, the Nigerian delegate added.

Poland supported the Indian proposal for longer meetings with longer intervals between meetings. It also wanted to see progress on market access, dispute settlement, agriculture and safeguards.

The United States agreed on the need for balanced progress. It was important to maintain the momentum and make faster progress, and "insufficiency of staff in delegations should not hold back progress", the U.S. added.

This was a reference to several third world countries who had complained of too many overlapping meetings at too frequent intervals.

The U.S. also hoped there would be significant progress to enable a balanced package of provisional results at the mid-term review.

Sweden, for the Nordic countries, was also satisfied with the progress, but said there was no room for complacency. At the next stage, participants should listen more carefully to the viewpoint of others and considerable amount of constructive spirit and understanding would be needed for progress.