May 20, 1998

'IMPLEMENTATION' IS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT NATIONS

 

Geneva, 19 May (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- A range of country concerns and problems swirling around the implementation of the WTO agreements were raised by developing country ministers and delegations at a working session of the WTO ministerial conference Monday.  

Developing countries identified areas that need to be addressed:  

While industrial nations tried to argue that the implementation problems in the ATC, and dealing with them, would amount to a "renegotiation" of the ATC, many developing countries said the ATC did not come in the way of more meaningful liberalization or in a manner that does not back-load the integration and make the industrial nations face adjustment problems at the end. 

However, some of them agreed, that the US implementation legislation on the Uruguay Round, spelling out the details of various stages of integration and what to integrate when could create some difficulties for the US. 

Nevertheless, in the WTO's goods council itself repeatedly the US and EC have been insisting that whatever their difficulties, they are committed to end the discriminatory quota restrictions at the end of the 10 year period. 

Several developing countries complained that many of the restrictions under the TBT or SPS agreements have been imposed or new standards set without any "transparency".  

Agriculture issues were prominently mentioned both by many developing countries, as well as Cairns group members, the United States and Japan.  

Norway would appear to have raised the issues of environment.  

In a separate, so far plurilateral process, the US pushed hard to get an accord on a declaration from the 2nd Ministerial Conference on Global Electronic Commerce.

While asking for a study process of sorts, through a work programme set by the General Council, on all the trade-related issues of electronic commerce, the substance of the US declaration would have the WTO members to agree to "continue their current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmission", and that "when reporting to the third session (of the Ministerial Conference), the General Council will review this declaration." 

India, Pakistan, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and others objected to a stand-still as worded -- since its ambiguity could be used later to mean that it would continue unless the WTO General Council decides by consensus otherwise. 

In the discussions, while the US delegation seemed ready to reformulate it to meet objections, but it was not clear how, some of US supporters like Australia wanted the ambiguity to be maintained.  

This resulted in hardening the opposition of some who said they could not agree to an indefinite standstill nor one from which they could resile only by consensus of the WTO General Council.  

Some negotiators noted that during the Uruguay Round the concept of accords only by consensus was turned on its head by the then GATT Director-General who presented his "draft compromise text" as a package and said any part of it could be changed only by "consensus" thus preventing changes.  

Negotiators said they don't want to be caught in a similar trap. 

And even though the text on electronic commerce is not viewed as a legal commitment, but only a political declaration, a "political commitment" is in fact on a higher pedestal than a legal one, one negotiator said. 

Some developing country sources said that while at the moment they were not levying any 'tariffs', the high visibility given to the issue by the US has focused attention of their hard-pressed revenue authorities looking for new sources of revenues. 

While the US has been repeatedly saying it wants a standstill only on "tariffs" and not on any "taxes" -- in fact it is not really such an easy and clear-cut distinction, more so when the "product" delivered by electronic transmission is not a physical one, on which the various distinctions between taxes, duties, cesses, levies etc have been developed in trade law.