Trade ministers from 25 key trading nations, including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Australia, India, Brazil, and Pakistan, met in Kenya from 2-4 March to “revive the World Trade Organization (WTO) talks that collapsed in Cancun, Mexico two years ago.”
In WTO diplomatic terminology such confidence building measures are termed as “mini ministerial meeting” necessary to break impasse in negotiations held in larger groups. On the other hand, many describe these meetings as exclusive sessions; a continuation of the “green rooms” where decisions are imposed by major trading powers and everything is kept highly secret.
Talks in Cancun collapsed mainly due to differences between the developing countries, and the European Union and the United States on agricultural subsidies.
Developing countries, especially G-20 (led by India, Brazil, and China), did not succumb to irrational trading terms of the EU and the US in Cancun and the talks could not proceed further. Since then, both the camps are trying to bridge their differences openly and through secret negotiations.
It is a proven fact and various UN agencies, including United Nation Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD), have reported that the advantages of the multilateral trading system (MTS) are not being distributed evenly among all the WTO members. Due to structural flaws and power politics in the MTS regime, most of the weaker economies are unable to tap the fruits of this system. Hence the WTO regime has become controversial.
In order to gain more from MTS and to make the most of this system, the concerned ministries of WTO member states always protect their governments’ interest during WTO negotiations. Such negotiations are formally concluded in WTO’s highest decision-making body, “Ministerial Conferences”, which take place after every two years. That is why such conferences have always been the focus of attention for all stakeholders.
To retain its neutral image, the WTO Secretariat (international bureaucrats) has to publicize the agenda of the main ministerial, and invite accredited journalists as well as NGOs to these meetings, along with trade ministers of member nations. The collapse of trade talks in Seattle and then in Cancun has taught a lesson to major trading players, i.e. publicly pressurizing developing countries to accept their terms and conditions would not work. Public resentment as well as civil society resistance, followed by the suicide of a South Korean farmer on issues of agricultural subsidies, contributed significantly toward making the Cancun Ministerial inconclusive. Furthermore, these issues were highlighted by the global media, thereby making laypersons across the world aware of WTO issues.
It is in this context that major trading powers have opted the route of low profile mini ministerial meetings for taking high profile decisions. Participation in such meetings is through invitation, the agenda is kept secret, and unwanted elements such as NGOs, observers and media are excluded. These meetings were organized in the run-up to Doha and the Cancun Ministerial. Now as Hong Kong Ministerial is approaching, the mini ministerial phenomenon has again gained momentum.
The trade ministers from Australia, Brazil, Canada, EU, India, Japan, Kenya, Switzerland and US met on January 29 this year during the annual summit of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, for a three-hour “mini-ministerial” meeting on the Doha Round of WTO negotiations. The Swiss government, which was hosting the talks, refused to describe the short meeting as a substantive “mini-ministerial.”
It suggested that the session only involved a “stocktaking” of the negotiations thus far, and discussion of preparations and objectives for the December 2005 WTO Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong.
At the meeting, Mukhisa Kituyi, Kenyan trade minister, handed out invitations for the first full length mini-ministerial to a similar group of countries. A mini-ministerial is also planned on the sidelines of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's annual ministerial gathering on May 3-4.
Although China declined the invitation to the Davos mini-ministerial, it has offered to host a mini-ministerial in late June/early July or in September.
Invitations for Kenya mini-ministerial (in Mombasa) were extended to 29 ministers and senior trade officials only. Originally, the meeting was to focus mainly on services, non-agricultural market access, antidumping and other rules-related issues, as well as development. However, tensions between the rich and poor countries surfaced in Kenya when grievances over farm reform clouded talks aimed at speeding up progress towards a new deal on global free trade. Celso Amorim, Brazil’s foreign relations minister, was critical of the meeting’s agenda. “Leadership must be by agriculture because that is why the round exists,” he said at the outset. Mark Vaile, Australian trade minister, also said progress in agriculture should continue to “lead the round.”
In contrast, EU Commissioners Peter Mandelson and Mariann Fischer-Boel and acting US Trade Representative Peter Allgeier, stressed the importance of a balanced deal that would include real cuts in tariffs for nonagricultural products, as well as more open services markets.
Rwanda’s Minister of Commerce, Manasse Nshuti, summed up the African position when he called for “tangible political commitment” to addressing issues of importance to developing countries.
The meeting gave a political push to two market access issues, where progress was already perceptible in Geneva, but failed to make a significant contribution to the services negotiations that remain seriously behind schedule.
An interesting scene was the convening of a “micro-meeting” within mini-ministerial. Australia, Brazil, the EU, India and the US – known as “five interested parties” (FIPs) since July Package – reconvened in micro-meetings to discuss the future agricultural negotiations. These countries were criticized for stitching up the agriculture annex of the July Package between them without taking on board the concerns of other members and coalitions. This time they did it again and continued exclusive talks on agriculture, which is the most crucial issue for all developing countries’ livelihood and food security.
Despite its secret nature, some activists and NGO representatives managed to gather near the meeting premises. They demanded pro-poor reforms in MTS. However, Kenyan police immediately arrested the protesters and completely silenced civil society. Subsequently civil society organizations across the world protested the manner in which the WTO affairs are run.
The mechanism of arranging exclusive “green room” meetings is fundamentally flawed. The criteria of countries selected are unknown. No written record of the discussion is kept. About 25-30 countries make decisions that affect the entire membership (148 countries). The agenda is set on behalf of all the members and in their absence. The use of exclusionary meetings to build consensus among the few, which is then presented to the majority as a take-it-or-leave-it package, is clearly undemocratic. It is also a violation of the one-country-one-vote and consensus system of the WTO. The process violates the spirit of international cooperation and undermines democratic principles for an international institution that creates legally binding and enforceable agreements for 148 governments worldwide.
WTO agreements oblige governments to undertake serious legislative and regulatory reforms that impact domestic policies not just limited to trade and, therefore, it is sad that the WTO, to this date, has failed to devise a system that incorporates all of its members to build a real consensus. It does not matter what one does on substance, if the outcome is pre-determined by a few.
Doesn’t it seem that our negotiators are wasting their time holding negotiations in Geneva? Deals are made and positions are reached when the chosen few meet. The rest of the members are persuaded and coerced to accept such positions and deals.
WTO members should not accept the holding of such “unofficial” mini-ministerials and green room meetings. The trade ministers should follow transparent and inclusive procedures and reject the use of “unofficial” and exclusive mini-ministerials in the run-up to the WTO’s sixth ministerial and of green room meetings in Hong Kong.
PDF Format
