Current WTO talks may become the 'anti-development' round<\/p>\n
The World Trade Organization (WTO) is under pressure to get
\nresults in its coming 6th Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong in
\nDecember and prevent the talks from collapsing as they did at the
\nlast ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003. Malaysia-
\nbased Third World Network (TWN) director Martin Khor, who joined
\na workshop last week formulating recommendations for Indonesia's
\nnegotiating team in facing the Hong Kong meeting, spoke with The
\nJakarta Post's Riyadi Suparno and Zakki P. Hakim on the latest
\ndevelopments in negotiations at the WTO. The following is an
\nexcerpt of the interview:<\/p>\n
Question: What should developing countries do to prepare for the
\nHong Kong meeting?
\nAnswer: Most of the negotiations will take place before Hong
\nKong. Therefore, September, October and November would be a very
\nimportant time. If we can't reach a decision by November, the
\nrich countries might do something in Hong Kong.<\/p>\n
The negotiations would focus on the major issues of
\nagriculture, NAMA (industrial goods) and services. Those are the
\nthree main issues now, as well as development issues.<\/p>\n
Government officials from developing countries keep saying WTO
\ntalks must focus on the \"D\" in the Doha Development Agenda. How
\nis it really going?
\nThe Doha agenda round is said to be about development and the
\ninterests of developing countries is the top priority at the
\ncenter. But in reality, it has not worked out like that. From
\n2001 until today, the progress is very little. The reason is the
\ndeveloped countries, especially the European Union and the United
\nStates, have a strategic strategy, that is, to make use of the
\nWTO for their own interests especially to open up the market of
\nthe developing countries while also continuing to protect their
\nagriculture.<\/p>\n
This is the big concern. If we don't stand up for our rights
\nfirmly, we will actually see this become an anti-development
\nround. The development aspects come in two ways, one is the
\ndevelopment issues that are supposed to be negotiated, that is,
\nhow to strengthen \"Special and Differential\" treatment for
\ndeveloping countries. The second is known as implementation
\nissues, where developing countries face problems in implementing
\ntheir Uruguay-round obligations.<\/p>\n
In Doha in 2001, it was promised that these two issues would
\nbe settled before concluding the other issues. They are so
\nimportant to restore the confidence in the WTO, because the
\ndeveloping countries are losing confidence in the WTO. But what
\nwe've seen today is that there's no progress in these two issues.<\/p>\n
This is very frustrating for developing countries.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it is said the development aspect must be at the
\ncenter of agriculture, NAMA and services. We also haven't seen
\nthis going on.<\/p>\n
The fact is agriculture is seen as the center of WTO
\nnegotiations, what is happening?<\/p>\n
In agriculture, most people accept that rich countries are
\nsupposed to reduce and eliminate their subsidies. In the export
\nsubsidy, they have agreed to eliminate it but they didn't say
\nwhen. So we need to know when.<\/p>\n
Second, on the domestic subsidy, people now realize that the
\nEU and U.S. do not intend to reduce their subsidy. They will
\nreduce some subsidies, but they will increase other subsidies
\nallowed under the WTO. They will continue their subsidies because
\nof the strong agriculture lobby they have. At the same time they
\nare demanding that we cut our tariffs even more.<\/p>\n
This is unfair. Their products are heavily subsidized. It is
\nartificially cheap, they are selling it to us. Whereas our
\nfarmers are more efficient, but we don't pay them subsidies, as
\nwe don't have the money. The only way we can protect ourself from
\nunfair, artificially low-priced imports is to have a high tariff.
\nOtherwise we don't have any defense.<\/p>\n
Can Indonesia do anything to influence the course of the
\nnegotiations?<\/p>\n
Indonesia is playing an important role as the coordinator of
\nthe Group of 33. The G-33 is trying to say that for Special
\nProducts (SP) that our farmers depend on for food security we
\nshould be allowed not to cut the tariff.<\/p>\n
Under the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) if there is a
\nsurge in imports, we should be able to raise the tariff above the
\nbound rate. So this is what the 44 members of the G-33's are
\nfighting for. Unfortunately, what the rich countries are saying
\nis this: \"In principal we agree with you. In practice, how much
\npower, we will give you for SP-SSM we don't know yet. We will
\nwait to the last minute.\"<\/p>\n
This is not good. This should be at the front, as it was said
\nthat development should be the center of this round. They must
\nguarantee us these two things, they must give in to our demand,
\nthen we will talk about the formula (of overall tariff
\nreduction).<\/p>\n
These are the big challenges in Hong Kong, whether Indonesia
\nas the leader of the G-33 can stand by itself and maintain the
\nunity of the group.<\/p>\n
What will happen if the Hong Kong talks collapse like Cancun?<\/p>\n
We artificially create the fear of failure, crisis, in order
\nto push negotiations through. We can take time five years, 10
\nyears, why must it be two months?<\/p>\n
If we don't finish the round this year, it doesn't matter,
\nbecause the WTO is still there, the rule is there, the dispute
\nsettlement mechanism is still there. It's an artificial deadline.
\nWe shouldn't be bullied. There's no real threat to the global
\ntrading system. The threat would be if we signed something that
\nis very unfair and then our farmers would lose their jobs.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/current-wto-talks-may-become-the-anti-development-round-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}