Current WTO talks may become the 'anti-development' round

Current WTO talks may become the 'anti-development' round

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is under pressure to get
results in its coming 6th Ministerial Meeting in Hong Kong in
December and prevent the talks from collapsing as they did at the
last ministerial meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in 2003. Malaysia-
based Third World Network (TWN) director Martin Khor, who joined
a workshop last week formulating recommendations for Indonesia's
negotiating team in facing the Hong Kong meeting, spoke with The
Jakarta Post's Riyadi Suparno and Zakki P. Hakim on the latest
developments in negotiations at the WTO. The following is an
excerpt of the interview:

Question: What should developing countries do to prepare for the
Hong Kong meeting?
Answer: Most of the negotiations will take place before Hong
Kong. Therefore, September, October and November would be a very
important time. If we can't reach a decision by November, the
rich countries might do something in Hong Kong.

The negotiations would focus on the major issues of
agriculture, NAMA (industrial goods) and services. Those are the
three main issues now, as well as development issues.

Government officials from developing countries keep saying WTO
talks must focus on the "D" in the Doha Development Agenda. How
is it really going?
The Doha agenda round is said to be about development and the
interests of developing countries is the top priority at the
center. But in reality, it has not worked out like that. From
2001 until today, the progress is very little. The reason is the
developed countries, especially the European Union and the United
States, have a strategic strategy, that is, to make use of the
WTO for their own interests especially to open up the market of
the developing countries while also continuing to protect their
agriculture.

This is the big concern. If we don't stand up for our rights
firmly, we will actually see this become an anti-development
round. The development aspects come in two ways, one is the
development issues that are supposed to be negotiated, that is,
how to strengthen "Special and Differential" treatment for
developing countries. The second is known as implementation
issues, where developing countries face problems in implementing
their Uruguay-round obligations.

In Doha in 2001, it was promised that these two issues would
be settled before concluding the other issues. They are so
important to restore the confidence in the WTO, because the
developing countries are losing confidence in the WTO. But what
we've seen today is that there's no progress in these two issues.

This is very frustrating for developing countries.

Furthermore, it is said the development aspect must be at the
center of agriculture, NAMA and services. We also haven't seen
this going on.

The fact is agriculture is seen as the center of WTO
negotiations, what is happening?

In agriculture, most people accept that rich countries are
supposed to reduce and eliminate their subsidies. In the export
subsidy, they have agreed to eliminate it but they didn't say
when. So we need to know when.

Second, on the domestic subsidy, people now realize that the
EU and U.S. do not intend to reduce their subsidy. They will
reduce some subsidies, but they will increase other subsidies
allowed under the WTO. They will continue their subsidies because
of the strong agriculture lobby they have. At the same time they
are demanding that we cut our tariffs even more.

This is unfair. Their products are heavily subsidized. It is
artificially cheap, they are selling it to us. Whereas our
farmers are more efficient, but we don't pay them subsidies, as
we don't have the money. The only way we can protect ourself from
unfair, artificially low-priced imports is to have a high tariff.
Otherwise we don't have any defense.

Can Indonesia do anything to influence the course of the
negotiations?

Indonesia is playing an important role as the coordinator of
the Group of 33. The G-33 is trying to say that for Special
Products (SP) that our farmers depend on for food security we
should be allowed not to cut the tariff.

Under the Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM) if there is a
surge in imports, we should be able to raise the tariff above the
bound rate. So this is what the 44 members of the G-33's are
fighting for. Unfortunately, what the rich countries are saying
is this: "In principal we agree with you. In practice, how much
power, we will give you for SP-SSM we don't know yet. We will
wait to the last minute."

This is not good. This should be at the front, as it was said
that development should be the center of this round. They must
guarantee us these two things, they must give in to our demand,
then we will talk about the formula (of overall tariff
reduction).

These are the big challenges in Hong Kong, whether Indonesia
as the leader of the G-33 can stand by itself and maintain the
unity of the group.

What will happen if the Hong Kong talks collapse like Cancun?

We artificially create the fear of failure, crisis, in order
to push negotiations through. We can take time five years, 10
years, why must it be two months?

If we don't finish the round this year, it doesn't matter,
because the WTO is still there, the rule is there, the dispute
settlement mechanism is still there. It's an artificial deadline.
We shouldn't be bullied. There's no real threat to the global
trading system. The threat would be if we signed something that
is very unfair and then our farmers would lose their jobs.