8:01 AM Dec 12, 1996

INDIA HOLDING OUT STILL ON INVESTMENT?

Singapore 11 Dec (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The Singapore Ministerial Conference was at an impasse Wednesday night over the inclusion in the Ministerial Declaration, of some formulations on investment and competition policy, and labour standards questions, and on a work programme on agriculture.

An informal plenary of the heads of delegations that met in the evening was quickly adjourned, having been advised that the consultations were still under way and more time was needed.

The small group of Ministers negotiating on the elements of the Declaration gathered again at night, and went on till about four in the morning (local time) of Thursday, but seemed no nearer consensus on the labour standards issue, as also on agriculture.

This group resumed on Thursday morning, with the Acting US Trade Representative, Ms Barshefsky and the EC Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, present, and joining hands to pressure those resisting the labour standards para in the Declaration.

Meanwhile, the environment NGO, Friends of the Earth (FoE) denounced the move for investment rules in the WTO and asked the members to reject it. FOE argued that an investment pact in the WTO would inevitably lead to WTO negotiations that would undermine environment protection, and sustainable development, especially in the non-industrialized nations. The on-going OECD negotiations pose a similar threat, FOE said.

And while the ICFTU is pushing the labour standards issue at the WTO, the World Federation of Trade Unions blamed the Washington consensus (for neo-liberal reforms) and "flexibilizing" collective labour agreements, for the plight of workers in the North.

The WFTU contrasted the US stand on investment and its willingness to invade countries to achieve its aims, and contrasted it with the stand here for social or labour standards, and said: "The 'social agenda' in trade agreements is another way of saying the US puts up protective commercial barriers in disguise."

And, the Third World Network, in a statement on the process here, denounced the secretive way negotiations are being conducted among a small group, with most of the developing countries kept out and in ignorance, while the industrial nations and their groupings are fully represented. The TWN also said that its "investigations"` showed that in these close consultations, the few developing countries are facing the combined pressure of the Industrial Nations and the WTO head, and pressured to surrender the interests of the people of the South for the benefit of corporate greed. The TWN said that as a result, all the problems of the developing world had been ignored at the SMC, while the industrial nations were adding new trade agenda issues, whether as study or otherwise, that would disadvantage the Southern countries even more.

Meanwhile, according to participants in the small 'plurilateral' talks (the new name for the old discredited 'green-room consultations' of the old GATT), on investment, a formulation for working groups to study investment and competition policies, with specific language that any negotiations would require explicit consensus, seemed acceptable to the countries in the small group, except for India.

Given the high political sensitivity of this issue in India (where, even after 50 years of freedom, the colonial memories of foreign traders and investors who established an empire, is still fresh in the collective historical memory of the people), the Indian position will probably be clear only after a cabinet meeting, and of the steering committee of the ruling coalition parties and their instructions to the Indian delegation here.

On labour standards, some compromise was being hammered out, but the group got stuck on whether it should be part of the Declaration or in a Chairman's closing summary. The US, which wants the issue in the Declaration, is insisting on a work programme or study group, if the issue is in a Chairman's text.

Probably, the US figures that if there be some formulation in a Ministerial Declaration, despite the view that it does not provide any follow up, it would be an advance from the Punta del Este and Marrakesh statements from the Chair, and would enable it to push for a work programme or study later.