May 18, 1998

HOW TO SKIN THE CAT OR BRING HOME THE RACOON SKIN?

 

Geneva, 15 May (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Trade Negotiators at the World Trade Organization (WTO) were due to go into further consultations, and smaller huddles, to agree on the text of a statement or declaration to be issued by the 2nd Ministerial Conference which, effectively, will have one-and-half-days of working meetings over 18-20 May.

Trade diplomats still were saying that no one wants the Geneva Ministerial to become like that at Singapore, when a few ministers were negotiating for long periods, but that they want the 'declaration text' to be agreed and out of the way to enable ministers to have substantive talks. But achieving this seems less easy and, at the least, some weekend negotiations may have to take place. 

Informal consultations chaired by WTO Director-General Renato Ruggiero broke up Friday night without coming to grips with the operative part of the declaration -- which as worded is about "negotiating on what to negotiate".  

There were still some differences on 'assessments' and 'declaratory' views, such as whether there should be an affirmation or reaffirmation of the primacy of the multilateral system and/or whether such a reference should also include words legitimising regional arrangements (such as Mercosur's) which Argentina is demanding.  

But some basic differences among trade negotiators on the wordings and phraseology of the draft text to be adopted and issued on 20th relate to the 'preparatory process' to commence beginning of 1999 and make recommendations for the Third Ministerial (presumably to launch negotiations). The disputes and differences turn around various alternatives and combinations of these negotiations about negotiations: 

The US wants, at least for now, only sectoral negotiations. Having seen gains for itself in such negotiations since Marrakesh - basic telecom, financial services, and zero tariff negotiations on information technology products and spirits, it wants no more basket of negotiations. Anyhow, it has no accord with Congress on the negotiating objectives or subjects, leave aside fast-track authority. It can only negotiate on issues where the US law would need no change.  

Argentina and a few other Cairns group members, want specific mention of agriculture and the start of the process in the preparatory process to be set in motion. This is supported by the US which also wants specific reference to the services negotiations.  

The EC is opposed to sectoral negotiations, or mention of any sector specific work (in whatever context), but wants some general formulation about the preparatory process to begin early 1999 to focus on "comprehensive trade liberalization". It argues that it is not resiling from the commitments to continue agriculture and services negotiations, but without specific mention, and rather as "negotiations already mandated", but also needs optical formulations that the next round would be for comprehensive liberalization. 

This last, plus the references in the mandate for the preparatory process to the Singapore decisions, and any other subjects Members might raise, in the EC view covers all the negotiations specifically mandated or envisaged under reviews, and the new issues of investment, competition policy and government procurement on which Singapore mandated studies, with no commitment to negotiations, are already under way, and others that could be conveniently brought up. 

There are a whole range of views of developing countries, with many opposing any decisions that imply negotiations on new issues, or pre-empting the processes set in motion at Singapore through the ministerial text to total opposition to anything beyond what is now on the WTO agenda.  

Various other protagonists have positions falling in between -- with some refusing to contemplate any negotiations on new issues now or in the near future to others who are willing to suggest they may consider it later in the General Council, but not commit themselves to it at his meeting.

Meanwhile, the WTO announced that 13 Heads of State/Government would be at the 50th anniversary celebrations on 19th afternoon, with the 14th Head, US President Bill Cliton, doing a solo act on 18th evening, when according to the WTO he is "expected to make his address on the Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary."  

The list announced Friday would bring from the developing world -- besides the already announced Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cordoso, Cuban President Fidel Castro and Singapore Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong -- South Africa's Nelson Mandela and the Cote d'Ivoire Prime Minister Daniel Kablan Duncan.  

The event has resulted in some extraordinary security arrangements put in place by the hosts, the Swiss confederation, to facilitate the presence of these wanted and invited guests, and keep at a distance the unwanted -- NGOs and popular movements protesting the WTO, and its neo-liberal order, globalization, benefiting a small minority and marginalizing the vast majority everywhere.  

An example of the arrangements were shown on Swiss TV on Thursday, when the Swiss police 'arrested' group of Germans youth, who entered via Basle (Germans can normally come in without visas) on motor-cycles to come to Geneva where representatives of popular movements are gathering. The arrested youth, the TV broadcast said, had been forced to go back to Germany.  

In Geneva itself, Friday, a band of Kurds (protesting Turkey), chained themselves to the gates, while some 30 managed to get into the UN palais complex, and entered the building to shout slogans. Ultimately, after a spokesperson of the Human Rights office, the South African ambassador who happened to come in at that time, and ultimately the Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson came and talked to them - when the Kurds reportedly apologised to her, and said (before dispersing) they would rather have seen her peacefully.  

Mr. Clinton who will fly in and spend a little over two hours perhaps in Geneva, is expected to announce in his solo commemoration session at the WTO, an offer to host the 3rd Ministerial meeting -- whose timing is still a matter of contention - to launch negotiations -- whose scope and subjects are even more in dispute.  

And for coming here to participate and commemorate the 50th anniversary of the multilateral system, Mr. Clinton wants to carry back, and wave to his audience at home, another US 'win' via WTO -- a WTO 'standstill' accord on no duties on electronic commerce.  

US negotiators have been busy trying their best to convince the other trading partners to find a way of 'delivering' something - an indefinite standstill, a standstill till 2000 (as Canadians have proposed), one till a review at the WTO - whether as part of a ministerial text or a separate agreement or a hybrid.  

It is not at all clear whether this infiltration of 'electronic commerce' into the WTO as a separate issue will be 'delivered' to President Clinton as a prize for coming here -- as a WTO standstill accord as part of an implicit negotiation commitment subject to review and if so what sort and kind or something more or less.  

Will it be part of many other reviews to be undertaken in terms of the existing WTO agreements between now and the next ministerial, or as a standalone standstill that would need consensus extension by a WTO review process or a standstill that could upset only by consensus in a review process to decide what to do on 'electronic commerce' or a hybrid of them all?  

Trade diplomats who broke up a little after Thursday-Friday midnight, and were due to resume formally and informally Friday afternoon, were not at all clear on this issue that has been brought up by the US side, and on which they have been holding a series of bilateral and plurilateral consultations, mostly in their mission.  

Friday afternoon, some European sources said, agreement has been reached and that there would be a separate text out of the Ministerial meeting, but not part of the declaration, covering electronic commerce, and this would provide for the 'standstill' and for the issue to be taken up at the General Council.  

Other sources cautioned that this issue has still to be cleared by the membership as a whole.  

The developing countries, to the extent that some of them have spoken in the WTO processes are not willing to get into the subject without some prior study at UNCTAD and at the WTO Committee on Trade and Development (CTD). Egypt has put forward a paper on these lines.  

Sources said that developing countries, but also others, are objecting to being rushed into decisions in an area where the Americans have all the technological lead and know what is involved, while most others are in states of relative ignorance. 

Some others have begun to voice objections on legal and 'constitutional' grounds to the way such 'new issues' and 'new subjects' are negotiated and brought up and made part of the WTO.  

Legal briefs prepared for them show that their instinctive opposition has a sound basis, and the old habit of 'anything is possible among consulting adults' in the old GATT as a provisional treaty is not at all possible in the WTO as an international definitive treaty.  

But in the WTO, and its negotiations that still reflect power relations, only those count who are prepared to be there at meetings, and are ready to stand up and say no and be counted. And this is probably the most difficult of all at the WTO, and explain back home why this was done or why this was not done.