Seattle and the Smaller Countries

 
Dec 14th 1999

Media coverage of the breakdown in world trade talks at Seattle has tended to concentrate on the protests by NGOs and their role in forcing the meeting to close without conclusion. But there was another, possibly even more significant, development at Seattle : the open protests by representatives of many small developing countries, at the undemocratic manner in which the meetings were being conducted, and the complete neglect of their own interests.
 
The protests were remarkable for two reasons : first, the fairly strong language used to express dissent, which is unusual in such intergovernmental negotiations; and second, the sheer length of time they took in coming at all. The strong reaction came about because in Seattle, even the usual niceties of multilateral negotiations were not observed, and the smaller developing countries were openly treated with contempt or simply ignored by the "main" negotiators.
 
Thus, most of the important negotiations took place in "green room" meetings where only a few countries were invited. Most developing country members of the WTO were not able to participate; only some like, say, India, Brazil and Malaysia would typically be included. But even if a country was invited to a meeting on a particular issue, it may not have been a participant in meetings related to other issues. Many developing countries - and especially the smaller countries - were not invited to any meeting on any issue at all.
 
While this is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the WTO, which is supposed to run along the lines of the UN system with equal participation of each member, it does faithfully reflect the unequal power structure and modes of operation of the WTO so far. For nearly five years, and even before as the Uruguay Round negotiations were in progress, the large bulk of developing countries in the world were passive recipients of this process, and tended to go along with it simply to avoid being left out of the process entirely.
 
But this time, evidently, the overt inequality and display of power during the negotiations by the more powerful was too much to tolerate. This is why, on the penultimate day of the Seattle talks, there were two separate statements from WTO members from the Latin American and Caribbean region, and African members. These protested against the host country tactics and utter lack of transparency in the processes at the Ministerial meeting and - more importantly - threatened to withhold consensus from any final outcome.
 
The GRULAC (Spanish acronym for Latin American and Caribbean group of countries) Ministers' declaration expressed :
 
1. "to the host country, our profound surprise and resulting anger at the organisation and lack of concern for providing the high dignitaries and delegates attending this Ministerial Conference with minimum conditions of security, and for allowing in some cases, physical and verbal aggressions against its distinguished guests."
 
2. "To the authorities of the Conference and the WTO Director-General's office, our express disagreement with the way in which the negotiations are being conducted at the Ministerial Conference, a way that shows a parallel course of action between a discourse oriented to transparency and the participation by the delegations, and a process of limited and reserved participation by some members which intends to define the scope and extent of the future negotiating round that all member-countries are to adopt. We are particularly concerned over the stated intentions to produce a ministerial text at any cost, including the modification of procedures designed to secure participation and consensus.
 
3. "To all WTO members, their strong conviction that, as long as conditions of transparency, openness and participation that allow for adequately balanced results in respect of the interests of all members do not exist, we will not join the consensus required to meet the objectives of this Ministerial Conference."
 
In a separate statement, the Trade Ministers of the Member states of the Organisation of African Unity/African Economic Community (OAU/AEC) said very similar things, including :
 
"We wish to express out disappointment and disagreement with the way in which negotiations are being conducted at this Third WTO Ministerial Conference. There is no transparency in the proceedings and African countries are being marginalised and generally excluded on issues of vital importance for our peoples and their future. We are particularly concerned over the stated intentions to produce a ministerial text at any cost including at the cost of procedures designed to secure participation and consensus. We reject the approach that is being employed and we must point out that under the present circumstances, we will not be able to join the consensus required to meet the objectives of the Ministerial Conference."

 
 | 1 | | 3 | 4 | Next Page >>
 

Site optimised for 800 x 600 and above for Internet Explorer 5 and above
© MACROSCAN 1999