May 8, 1998
SECOND MINISTERIAL, 'A MEETING ABOUT ANOTHER MEETING'!
Geneva, 6 May (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- "This will be 'a meeting about another meeting,' as Indian Ambassador S. Narayanan put it," WTO spokesman Keith Rockwell said Wednesday at a press briefing when asked to sum up what could be the outcome of the 2nd Ministerial meeting in Geneva 18-20 May.
The second ministerial, with a working session (of discussions among ministers) on 18th afternoon, and a second on 20th, won't be a negotiating meeting on the final outcome (with a minister's statement or declaration) as at Singapore, and the document would be finalised at an informal heads of delegation meet on 14 May, and endorsed at a formal General Council meeting on 15, the WTO spokesman said.
After a series of bilateral and plurilateral consultations, Ruggiero produced a text on 20 April and discussed, on 24 April with delegations making some general comments. Two meetings on Wednesday, for a drafting exercise, saw a number of delegations putting forward amendments and changes to the text - many of a drafting nature or substantive about the past, but a few about the future work.
And just a week before the finalisation of the document, discussions at an informal heads of delegations meet Wednesday, showed some gaps in views on substance that remained to be bridged.
Trade officials implied a minority of delegations were opposed to any wording now, committing them either to a 'millennium round' or a new round of negotiations, with new issues and subjects, and that these delegations wanted at this stage no reference or commitment other than to implementation issues or the socalled 'built-in agenda' - of further negotiations, or reviews and assessments of existing provisions etc.
There are others, like the Cairns group of agricultural exporters and some of the Latin American countries, as well as the European Commission (for the EU states) pushing for a millennium round of old and new issues, and wanting a commitment at the Geneva Ministerial for work to begin on all these issues, and a round to be launched at another ministerial in 1999.
There will be some 'fudged' language to accommodate both sides, to achieve consensus. Each side thinks it knows the other's "bottom line", but won't push and test things at this stage. As a result some work would begin at the WTO after the summer recess to prepare for the new round with old and new issues, and the crunch would be put off till the next ministerial, some trade officials suggested.
But other participants suggested that in the trading system, where negotiations are in fact very non-transparent, despite such informal HOD meetings, a few delegations take a position, and others who may agree with them do not express themselves, hoping that these delegations would maintain their positions (and take the odium) while they could benefit, in the favourite trade jargon, as 'free riders'. Later, if the few compromise, the silent blame them for letting others down.
And while there is much talk that lack of 'fast track authority' for the US administration need not come in the way (as negotiations have been launched in the past without such authority, and Congress granting it only during the negotiations), there are some trade observers and specialists who say that the situation is different now.
In previous trade negotiations, while actual fast track authority sometimes came amidst the negotiations, there was understanding between Congress and the administration on the objectives. But unlike in the past, with the neo-liberal order and the WTO trying to decide domestic policies and override sovereign decisions of countries, the executive and legislative branches are totally divided; and domestic political issues would dominate the debate until atleast the next Presidential election and a new man takes over the White House.
In this situation, one Washington analyst, Mr. Craig VanGrasstek, has noted that the administration could use other measures to negotiate, approve and implement trade agreements, but that "this a la carte style of negotiations would make it difficult for the administration to bargain across issue areas, and seek grand exchanges between developing and industrialized nations." The US would try to negotiate accords where its own laws or rules would need no change, and others would need to make concessions.
Hence the current US thrust for 'sectoral' negotiations (information technology products at Singapore, electronic commerce this time around etc) and presenting them as plurilateral negotiations that would not deny non-participants their mfn rights, and hence could be lodged inside the WTO.
However, a serious legal challenge to this is now emerging.
When the WTO as an umbrella organization for a single undertaking was being pushed in 1992-93, (it was then called multilateral trade organisation), Canada and several others presented it as a way of curbing US unilateralism, preventing any active role in trade area by UNCTAD or the UN, and ending the post-Tokyo Round situation of a fractured trading system with members having varying rights and obligations. This 'all things to all' has not materialized. And a careful reading of the WTO implies that while countries could cut their tariffs bilaterally, but make benefits available to others on an MFN basis, no plurilateral or other negotiations could be launched without specific sanction of the General Council on a consensus decision.
With the crop of Third World diplomats who negotiated the WTO, having left the scene, the same old situation is being re-introduced with these sectoral accords and plurilateral agreements, and a fractured trading system is emerging with varying rights and obligations, with some more equal than others.
The information technology products negotiations idea was initiated outside the WTO, in the runup to Singapore, dominated the scene there (while everything else was put on a back-burner) and negotiations were held outside, with some developing countries finding it in their interest to jump on the band wagon at the last stage. And it was then said those not parties would not suffer as they would get MFN benefits.
But the arrangement provides that the future agenda of negotiations in the sector would be decided only by the parties to the accord. And those who are parties hold formal meetings open to everyone, but as in other WTO bodies take decisions in informal meetings open only to themselves.
In the discussions Wednesday, it would appear that a number of areas of disagreement emerged that key negotiators hope to sort out within the week, before the next informal HOD meet on 14 May.
Among the points of disagreement are:
Argentina, Australia, the Central European countries, Hong Kong, Thailand were said to be favouring start of a process soon after the ministerial, while some others including others in the ASEAN demur with some nuanced statements. At the last informal, Thailand and Singapore seemed to support a millennium round, while Malaysia (backed by Indonesia and the Philippines) demurred.
Several of the developing countries who spoke Wednesday said that the Ruggiero text did not give appropriate weight to the issue, at one stage talking of 'commitment for full and faithful implementation', at another of the issue being 'closely and effectively monitored by relevant WTO bodies", and difficulties being resolved by the dispute settlement mechanism, and at a third place about work under existing agreements and decisions to constitute "the core of future activities" in the WTO.
While thus seemingly bowing to the varied complaints and concerns of developing countries, the way it has been presented is an attempt to give verbal support to the developing countries, but sweeping the problems again under the rug, as happened in earlier rounds of the old GATT negotiations, while the major push ahead with making more inroads into the developing world, some Third World diplomats have been complaining at other trade-related meetings and seminars outside the WTO.
Colombia, India, Egypt, Pakistan and others raised this issue, trade officials said Wednesday in briefing the press, adding Amb. Narayanan of India spoke energetically and vocally at the informal HOD meet, about the implementation problems and focusing on them.
Several others including Cuba, Uganda (for the LDCs) spoke of the marginalisation of the developing countries, in particular LDCs, in the system and need to focus on these and redress the situation.
Several developing countries, trade officials said, wanted this rubric to be limited to the question of implementation and the built-in agenda, including agriculture and services where further negotiations are mandated, and others where agreements or parts are due for review or further assessment etc.
India and Pakistan underscored this position, officials said, insisting on the need for a clear distinction between built-in agenda and any thing that could come out of the working groups or study processes set at Singapore.
The industrialized countries wanted the outcome of the working groups to be reflected in future negotiations.
The Ruggiero text, in the operative last para, would also built-in agenda, Singapore issues and others that may be raised at the 2nd Ministerial, to be brought onto the future work programme and negotiations.
However, India reportedly said that any reference in the ministerial text to be adopted at the 2nd ministerial, or wording to include issues on the Singapore declaration, as part of a future agenda would create problems for India (to accept the text by consensus). This did not mean that India was ruling out any decisions, but not at this stage, though at an appropriate time, it could be considered by the General Council and decisions taken. Trade officials also said the Europeans, North Americans (their description) and Latin Americans felt that the ministerial text was not "ambitious enough".
Meanwhile, the WTO head, Mr. Renato Ruggiero, and his senior aides for weeks now have been trying to drum up media 'enthusiasm' for the meeting, and for the "celebrations" of the 50th anniversary of the multilateral trading system on the 19th of May.
That 'celebration' -- the very idea that there is anything to celebrate was challenged by several Third World diplomats at a Third World Network seminar last week -- is to be 'sandwiched' between the two official working sessions of the Ministerial on 18 and 20, but not really a part of WTO meeting.
At the first WTO ministerial at Singapore, Canada brought in (at the secretariat inspiration) the issue of the 50th anniversary, and got that meeting to ordain a celebration along with the 2nd ministerial, and the General Council directed to prepare this event.
At Ruggiero and Canadian instance, the idea of 'celebrations' with participation of heads of state was mooted, and Ruggiero has been trying to arouse enthusiasm through this.
But till very recently, only heads of Singapore the previous host and Switzerland the WTO-host country, had said they would come to participate.
On Wednesday, a list of nine was put out by the WTO: heads of Norway, the UK, Slovenia, Singapore, the European Commission, Switzerland, Italy, Canada and Brazil. Some more were said to be 'considering.'
The WTO, and some of the Europeans, were trying to promote attendance of some 'black' Africans, and some other Asians, lest the "celebrations" be viewed as a "gathering of one hue". Efforts are reportedly on to bring President Nelson Mandela of South Africa, who might say something critical, but yet provide some 'legitimacy' to the gathering. It is also hoped that if he comes, a few others from sub-Saharan Africa would also turn up.
It was in this context that a question was posed about how the WTO would describe the next ministerial and its outcome, and the spokesman fell back to citing the description of the Indian ambassador at the informal, as "a meeting about another meeting".