May 19, 1998

SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME - 'PARTY' BEHIND BARRICADES

Geneva, 18 May (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The three-year old World Trade Organization prepared itself to stage the 50th anniversary celebrations of the trading system here, a shape of things to come were the heavily-guarded barricades behind negotiators meet (over the weekend), even as an emerging broad coalition of popular movements staged a demonstration Saturday the like of which staid Geneva, a city of diplomats and international functionaries, and natives who keep them all at arms length, had not seen before.  

But more important perhaps is that this seemed to presage the shape of things to come in the world, as governments open themselves further to the WTO system, and its rules to create a level playing field for transnational corporations, and an enforcement mechanism through governments nearer to the scene - as never attempted or seen before.  

The demonstration was not really that big (by Geneva standards leave aside Third World standards), some thousands of persons from variegated groups -- peasant movements, the young, the Zapatistas of Mexico and several other movements grouped under a "Peoples Action Group, PGA, against WTO" -- mostly peaceful, but with some not so peaceful, who wrecked or set on fire some cars (including the Jamaican ambassador's), attacked McDonald and some other American-style fast-food stores on their route, and sprayed slogans on windows of banks.  

But the demonstrators, and their 'street party' upstaged the official celebrations due to be kicked off by US President Bill Clinton's solo performance Monday (to avoid appearing on the same platform as Fidel Castro or the other G-7?) and a day of commemoration speeches from 13 other Heads on Tuesday.  

Holed up at the WTO's headquarters, and behind barricades, the diplomats were negotiating the fine points of a eleven-para text for adoption by ministers, including arguments about sustained economic growth (that developing countries insist upon) and 'sustainable development' (that the developed, unwilling to cut back on their own consumption, want the developing world to follow a different path to save the quality of their own affluent life).  

But the barricades around the entire international complex -- the separate headquarters building of the WTO (which prides itself in not being a part of the UN system) and the UN's own Geneva complex, was such that only those with unsustainable life-styles of cars, preferably chauffer-driven, with special badges, could pass through. Those with sustainable life styles, using buses or other 'environmentally sustainable' transports had to jump barricades, to get in. 

By and large, and away from the demonstrators, the police, and some conscript soldiers in battle fatigues, kept some humour (and even assisted this writer to cross barricades, by two of them physically lifting him from one side to the other of the barricade). But many others were not so lucky.  

And while those who staged the demonstration, for weeks ad months had made no secret of their plans, announcing it at press conferences and preliminary meetings here in March, and by notices in web pages in cyber space, the Geneva cantonal authorities said they had been "surprised" by the demonstrations and were calling in reinforcements, but that "security" would have precedence over "access" to participants. They could not promise easy access to those relying on their feet to enter the UN complex for non-WTO activities.  

The demonstrators, and their opposition to 'globalization', 'neo-liberalism' and the 'WTO free trade' could be dismissed, as the WTO's head had done a few weeks ago, by describing them as forces or voices from the past, some 'marxists and communists and left-wingers.' 

They could be dismissed too as "a motley collection of peasants organizations, students and squatter groups, and far-left trade unions" as a Financial Times writer said Monday - the same writer who complained of the NGO lobby groups and their 'guerilla war' that had made it impossible for the OECD to write investment rules, and would make it equally difficult in future for the WTO to write its rules. 

The PGA is a broad coalition of many grass-roots movements, many more activists from Asia and Latin America, who have reached the conclusion that any 'dialogue' with WTO and trade ministries would not change anything. 

But the opposition to the WTO version of 'globalization' and 'trade order' also comes from old established, and not so established, newer environmental and development NGOs who are beginning to lobby their governments, and even their domestic (non-TNC) businesses, and forming their own broad coalitions against the IMF-World Bank-WTO economic oligarchy. 

It was this coalition of NGOs, of the North and the South, who overcame, atleast temporarily, their mutual differences (on how to safeguard environment and improve social standards), and have seen the same 'face' behind proposals of the IMF capital account convertibility, WTO liberalization of financial services (which in fact includes all forms of capital movements and rights), the OECD's efforts to write rules for Multilateral Investors Rights, and its variations at the WTO/UNCTAD-TNC division etc -- and oppose and sink them. 

It won't be before 2000 before the bite and reach of the current WTO's rules into the domestic sovereign jurisdiction of countries takes effect -- going beyond traditional area of trade in goods crossing the frontier, and rules to safeguard concessions granted and bound -- and encompass other state roles and non-roles in economies of countries.  

And already both its reach, and the fears of its full reach, is generating opposition movements in developing and developed world. And tarring them with a marxist or communist brush as in the old Mcarthy era - and five years after the fall of the Berlin wall - is unlikely to create many echoes or frighten away the opposition.  

But when foreign capital, and TNCs, get such a right of entry and exit at will, with all rights including enforcement rights written into binding international agreements, rights that would make them enjoy superior rights than natives and domestic capital, it is a new ball game, with every likelihood of a tinder-box effect.  

When even in the current situation, negotiators have to meet behind such barricades and citadel like stances, with drawbridges up and portcullis down, to safeguard existing rights of capital in the 50^th year of the multilateral trading system and write new rules for the next 50 years, has anyone inside calculated the kind of world we would be living in, the WTO's chief spokesman, Keith Rockwell was asked Sunday, at a pre-Ministerial meet press conference? 

It is a good question Rockwell responded, thus ducking an answer. 

Opponents outside may not be matched by many of the governments inside.  

And in an 'organization' with a 'liberalizing' culture, it is not so asy for any negotiator to oppose such 'liberalization'.

But nevertheless, a few are beginning to challenge and oppose, couching their opposition in terms of their need to proceed at their own pace, and not forced to hurry at pace set by the EC or US or Japan to suit their corporate interest.

The US appears to be somewhat behind in pressing for further 'broad-based' liberalization: but that is only because the present sectoral or salami process seems to be working to its advantage without having to give anything anywhere in return. And without accord with Congress on a new negotiating objective or fast-track authority, the US administration can't deliver. 

It can only cloak its 'empty hands', open and ready to receive but not to give anything, by much rhetoric and calls for bold actions -- that President Clinton may trot out Monday night, while inviting the WTO to stage its next meeting in United States. 

The EC already has made known that it would want such a meeting in July 1999, both to force the pace of preparatory work in the WTO General Council and to kick off the broad-based liberalization negotiations it seeks - to encompass investment and its version of competition policy, to knit an iron-plated suit of armour for transnational neo-liberal order. 

The arguments and the outcome in many areas are perhaps instructive. 

Starting with an 'extreme' demand to launch a 'comprehensive' millennium round, the EC has "given way" and "compromised" with "further liberalization sufficiently broad-based to respond to the range of interests and concerns of members". Anything and everything can be made to come into this picture, particularly with the "trade and.." approach instead of the older "trade-related..." 

Some obeisance has been paid to the concerns of the Asian and other countries hit by the financial crisis - but they remain words, without content.  

A paragraph in the declaration text says: 

"The fiftieth anniversary comes at a time when the economies of a number of WTO Members are experiencing difficulties as a result of disturbances in financial markets."  

And what are the solutions? "We take this opportunity to underline that keeping all markets open must be a key element in a durable solution to these difficulties."  

Keeping markets open is to be even-handed, and applied to those affected and those benefiting by the crisis. 

"With this in mind," the draft text says, "we reject the use of any protectionist measures and agree to work together in the WTO, as in the IMF and the World Bank to improve the coherence of international economic policy-making with a view to maximizing the contribution that an open, rule-based trading system can make to fostering stable growth for economies at all levels of development." 

The efforts so far of the governments to have 'coherence' of the trading and money and financial systems have been to for IMF and World Bank to use informally WTO trade expertise to pry open developing country markets - for goods and financial services exports - for developed countries and their firms.  

There is no record, for example, of the IMF and the World Bank using their influence, beyond general statements, specifically directed to open up individual countries and sectors of developed countries - even if the powerful would listen to their advice. 

And the only policy reaction, after the Asian crisis, has been talk of improved transparency of developing country government activities visavis financial enterprises, domestic and foreign.  

As was set out at the recent UNCTAD seminar, everyone wants everyone else's activities to be made transparent. 

Meeting behind barricades, and making themselves as inaccessible as possible, even more than is normal at such meetings, even to the ability of media representatives to way-lay ministers in and out of their meetings, the Ministers in the Declaration to be adopted have promised "to consider" how to improve the transparency of WTO operations.

They are also to "recognize" the importance of enhancing public understanding of the benefits of the multilateral trading system in rder to build support for it and agree to work towards this end.

The proof of a pudding may be in the eating, but only as a saying.  

The Managing Director of the IMF has been quoted in the media as having told church leaders that a generation of sacrifice is needed for the IMF (neo-liberal) model of development to succeed.  

The WTO has not so far been so foolish as to set a target date to achieve its promises.