Jul 20, 1998
WILL DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AGAIN MISS THEIR AGENDAS?
Geneva, 16 July (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The General Council of the World Trade Organization agreed Thursday to meet in special session in September to set up the special process, mandated by the General Ministerial conference, on a work programme for preparations for the third ministerial meeting, and to fix a calendar of work for the processes, with the General Council maintaining overall role.
But the discussions, and some of the manoeuvres outside, suggest that if the developing country negotiators do not bestir themselves, and act with some preparedness and unity of interests, they may once again miss their priorities and agendas being addressed in the next ministerial and negotiations.
The next ministerial is now expected to be held towards end of November 1999 in the United States, perhaps in California. Much would depend on the outcome of the mid-term congressional elections this November, and the ability of President Clinton to overcome some of the personal issues that have been swirling around his administration and get some go-ahead from Congress on trade negotiations. In the meanwhile, the administration appears to be hedging its bets, pushing for negotiations in areas of interest to it (agriculture, further services liberalisation, tariff reductions in specific industrial sectors etc).
With the WTO itself due to decide on a successor to Renato Ruggiero by end November this year, many of the developing country delegations would be having an eye on that process, including on some of the top positions for their countries. How far this is going to affect the preparations remains to be seen.
As set out in the Geneva Ministerial declaration, this work programme is to provide:
(a) recommendations on
(b) recommendations on possible future work on basis of work programme initiated at Singapore (investment, competition policy, trade facilitation and government procurement);
(c) recommendations arising out of the High-Level Meeting on LDCs; and
(d) recommendations arising from consideration of other matters proposed and agreed to by members concerning their multilateral trade relations.
The members had before them a check-list of issues provided by the secretariat but which, several members said, had become available only just before the meeting, and that it would need to be discussed more.
India and several others suggested that the September special council meeting should discuss the check-list.
After the meeting, some members thought that this would be on the September meeting agenda for a full discussion, while some others had the impression that the Canadian chair of the General Council will hold consultations to produce his own paper.
A US proposal, clarifying its earlier request for "updating of the data base" by the WTO bodies and their readiness to provide inputs for negotiations, asked the secretariat to provide "an analysis" of the state of consolidated schedules of tariffs and service commitments, notification and technical information. The US said that in particular this (analysis) was intended to focus on its proposal for further tariff cuts in industrial products.
While the EC supported this, a number of developing countries objected, noting that the tariff schedules in goods and commitments in services were on country schedules, available (as data computer discs) with the US. If the US had problems in accessing these, India suggested amidst laughter from other members, the US should seek the "technical assistance" of the secretariat.
The Indian reposte was a 'play-back' of the US-EC stand, when in the Committee on Rules of Origin, the two had blocked a developing country request that the secretariat provide an analytical report. The two asked developing countries to seek technical assistance of the secretariat, which in turn is reported to have explained their limitations (under the rules and secretariat codes) in going beyond the "factual information" available and helping delegations to analyze it.
India also said that its opposition to US ideas for sectoral negotiations on industrial tariffs was well-known.
A number of other delegations also opposed the US proposal, and there was no consensus for its adoption.
Earlier, developing countries, and more so the textiles and clothing exporting countries, expressed their frustration and dissatisfaction at the WTO General Council Thursday over the failure to complete work on harmonisation of rules of origin by 20 July, as mandated by the Marrakesh Agreement.
A recommendation of the Committee on Rules of Origin, now provides for extending the period for work on this issue, with a November 1999 "best endeavour" target.
The lack of harmonized rules of origin that enable importers to "distinguish" and differentiate among countries, even in respect of trade covered by the MFN obligations, has been adverse to the trade of developing countries, and in particular textiles and clothing exporting countries.
Developing countries were concerned that even the November 1999 deadline may not be achieved.
Statements by Canada and the US confirmed this view. The two delegations said that further work could take place only on the basis of the completion of the work of the Brussels-based Customs Cooperation Council. Only thereafter they could provide a higher quality effort to the work at the WTO.
On the work of the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements, WTO members also expressed frustration at the slow pace of activity in this committee where after three years not a single report has been issued.
Trade officials said that "factual" reports are ready in 30 cases, including on the NAFTA, but that their adoption is being held up for a systemic analysis of the implications of regional agreements on the multilateral trading system. One of the problems relate to the fact that regional agreements, with preferential arrangements among members, to get legitimacy at the WTO must have "substantial coverage" of the trade (in goods and services) among members.
In other decisions, the Council set up a working party on the request of Samoa for accession.
On another accession work being held up by the demands of the US, the accession request of Latvia, it was brought out that the accession was being held by the demand of the US over Latvia's policy in the audio-visual sector. Latvia, which is a member seeking to join the EU, has to accept and abide by the EC directive in this sector, a directive to which the US is opposed.
The EC complained at the Council that Latvia was being asked by the US to make concessions going beyond Latvia's obligations to the EU for accession.
The US indicated in the Council that it was ready to change its request for "full market access" and "national treatment" in this sector and new requests ere being made.
On electronic commerce, Egypt put forward a work programme on which the Council chairman is due to hold informal consultations with a view to adoption at the September Council.
The Egyptian paper insisted that the work programme for examination of electronic commerce issues should be limited to trade-related issues of electronic commerce, and this should take into account the economic, financial and development needs of developing ountries and recognize the work undertaken in other fora.
Towards this end, the Egyptian paper proposed that the WTO work should be done in stages with, initially, work being undertaken at the Councils on Trade in Goods, in Services, TRIPs, and the Committee on Trade and Development, so that the examination could be done in a coherent way and without undue fragmentation.
The three councils should examine the legal treatment of electronic transmissions in the various WTO agreements, while the CTD should examine the development implications.
A mechanism should also be established to facilitate receiving contributions from other international fora.