|
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." |
