Dr Abid Qaiyum Suleri
suleri@sdpi.org
IIf the process of “mini-ministerial meeting” of WTO members is a non-consultative, non-transparent and exclusive process, what would we term the exclusive meeting of G-20 ministers recently held in Pakistan?
Technically speaking it was a mini-ministerial meeting, and given a choice, one prefer would not to follow the route of such exclusive meetings. It seems, however, that the developing countries do not have any choices left. It was their unity that led Cancun Ministerial Conference to end without any conclusion. Since then, WTO negotiations are being held through pressure tactics by various pressure groups.
Developed nations are using either international financial institutes (IFIs), or bilateral trade agreements to compel developing countries to succumb to WTO plus conditionalities. In response, the developing countries are relying on forming pressure blocks such as G-20. The group has diversified membership: Five from Africa – Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe; six from Asia – China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand; and nine from Latin America – Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela. It is being coordinated by Brazil. In small group meetings, however, both Brazil and India represent the group.
The G-20’s major focus is on agricultural negotiations. India and Brazil took part in a “micro-consultative process between India, Brazil, EU, USA, and Australia”, called “Five Interested parties (FIPs)”, last year. The FIPs’ meeting led to “July Package”, a deal that was later criticized by a majority of the developing countries, because it lacked any real relief for poor farmers of the developing world.
One can easily see the root cause of the dissatisfaction among the developing countries. It is extremely difficult to harmonize and prioritize the trade interests of large economies like China, India, Brazil with those of small economies such as Benin and Tanzania.
The dissatisfaction among the G-20 members is aggravated by the divide and rule policies pursued by the European Union and the United States. The EU and the US are trying to weaken the group by offering selective privileges to the selected few. The G-20 ministers have already met in New Delhi (India) and Sao Palo (Brazil) since July 2004 to keep the internal consultation process on. It seems, however, that agreeing to a common agenda is far off, and that is why Pakistan, who was never in a leading position in G-20, offered to host the third meeting of the group.
The participants discussed various formulas for cuts and disciplines in domestic support, end date for export competition, formula for tariff reduction, selection and treatment of sensitive products, and special and differential treatment provisions for developing countries.
It was, however, a shame that selection and treatment of “special products” as well as special safeguard mechanisms were not part of the formal agenda of the meeting. The meeting started with a renewed commitment by ministers that they wanted to work for protection of livelihoods of small farmers. One can gauge the depth of this commitment by noting that the Pakistani delegation was led by the commerce minister, though the agricultural minister was present at the venue.
About 100 yards away from the main gate of the meeting venue, a “People's Forum on WTO” was being held by small farmers and representatives of civil society organizations from Pakistan, Nepal, Great Britain, Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia, under the auspices of civil society networks, WTO Watch Group, and the Sustainable Agricultural Action Group. The road that leads from Murree to Bhurban was full of banners put up by these organizations, demanding the G-20 members to remain united, and work for the protection and promotion of small farmers’ livelihoods.
While negotiators were busy in discussing the technicalities of the Agreement on Agriculture, small farmers were wondering why diesel prices were soaring, cost of production of essential crops was increasing and fertilizers were not made available on time and at a reasonable price. More importantly, they were shocked to know from the civil society representatives that a huge amount of subsidies was provided to farmers as well as consumers of the developed world by their governments.
Farmers and civil society members organized a rally mainly to show solidarity with the G-20 ministers, and also to protest against subsidies being provided by the developed countries of the North to their farmers. They were also critical of the non-consultative and non-transparent process in which the G-20 meeting was being held. They wanted to know the role of the Parliament in deciding any negotiation stance. They also questioned the absence of heads of parliamentary committees on WTO as well as on agriculture in the meeting.
For the first time in the history of G-20, civil society representatives were provided a brief opportunity to address the visiting ministers (in session II of day one). The two civil society representatives let in urged the delegates to reject the WTO negotiation package (July Package) that contains, inter alia, following anti-development elements:
They urged the G-20 to undertake necessary efforts to bring a true development agenda on the negotiation table. After a consultative process with other civil society partners, they recommended the G-20 ministers to propose a package that must include the following:
The civil society representatives also criticized (and African ministers were really happy with this point) the mechanism of “five interested parties” (FIPs), for they felt it was non-participatory, non-consultative, and did not take care of the interests of African countries. They asked India and Brazil to quit the FIPs and work genuinely for saving small farmers in the developing countries.
Although civil society representatives were provided a chance to address the visiting ministers, they were not able to have an appointment with the Pakistani commerce minister. Civil Society representatives of Pakistan in general were not consulted prior to the Bhurban meeting, and there were no real discussions with the stakeholders on “Pakistani proposed positions.” It was in this context that an invitation from India's Commerce Minister Kamal Nath for an exclusive meeting with Pakistani civil society representatives seemed to be a positive change.
Kamal Nath showed great interest in civil society's positions and expressed solidarity with small farmers of the developing countries. He, however, did not seem to be very keen on leaving FIPs.
Pascal Lamy, the former EU trade commissioner who criticized the WTO functioning and declared it as a medieval organization in Cancun, has taken over as WTO Director General since September 1, 2005. He has expressed his desire to move the WTO negotiation process on fast track. Pascal Lamy should keep in mind that the miseries of small farmers will never end through quick fix solutions, and fast track may not be the best option.
PDF Format
