A WTO round of development talks cannot be a  round of free trade talks

« International trade can play an important part in economic development and reduction of poverty. We recognise the need for all people to benefit from the increased opportunities and better living conditions that a multilateral trade system generates. The majority of WTO members are developing countries. We pledge to put their interests at the core of the work programme adopted in the present declaration.” Ministerial Declaration of the WTO, Doha November 14th 2001.

This was the opening statement at the round of WTO trade talks seven years ago.  But in actual fact, economic development, reduction of poverty, the needs of all people, increased opportunities  for developing countries – are these really at the centre of the ongoing WTO  negotiations?

What must be said right away is that if that were the case, the 153 member states, and in particular the vast majority of developing countries, should be the main actors in these negotiations. But instead we see that a handful of 35 countries are invited by the Director General to informal meetings, in order to move ahead with the essential contents of the negotiations and to  prepare the agreements of the WTO round “for development”.

The WTO talks have turned into a race by the developed countries to open up markets in the developing world for their own big companies.

The farm subsidies in the North, which mainly go to agri-business companies in the United States and Europe, will not only continue, but will even increase, as can be seen from the latest U.S. Farm Bill of 2008. Developing countries will have to reduce their customs duties on agricultural imports, whereas U.S. and European subsidies to their own agriculture will not be cut back.

As regards the industrial products in the WTO talks, the objective is to have developing countries slash their import duties by 40 to 60%, whereas the industrial nations will  only lower theirs by 25 to 33%.

For countries such as Bolivia,  the erosion of the preferential customs system by the generalised distribution of customs duties will impair our competitive export capacity.

The recognition of asymmetric patterns and the real and effective “special and differentiated treatment of developing countries” are limited and their implementation is blocked by the developed nations.

The talks also drive towards the liberalisation of the service sector, although essential services such as education, health, water, power and telecommunications should be definitely excluded from the WTO General Agreement on Trade and Services. Access to such services are human rights and cannot be a matter for private enterprise and liberalisation rules that lead to privatisation.

The deregulation and privatisation of financial services is one of the causes of the present world crisis in finance. Further liberalisation of services will not bring about development, but, on the contrary, will  increase the likelihood of further crises and speculation in areas as vital as that of food.

The system of intellectual property rights established by the WTO has been of particular advantage to the transnational companies, which have secured patent monopolies and, driving up prices on pharmaceuticals and other vital products,  they have gone on to privatise and merchandise life itself, as can be seen from the number of patents they hold on plants, animals and even the human gene.

The poorest countries are the main losers. According to estimates of the economic effects of a possible WTO agreement, calculated by the World Bank among others, the aggregate costs in terms of lost jobs, reduced decision-making clout in the definition of national policies and the loss of customs revenue will outdo the “gains” from the Doha Round.

After seven years of talks the Doha Round is anchored in the past and out of phase  with the most important developments of the day: the food crisis, the energy crisis, climate change and the extinction of cultural diversity. The gospel spread to the world is that an agreement is necessary to resolve the problems now on the international agenda, but the proposed agreement does not reflect these realities. Its foundation is inadequate  and it cannot stand up to the issues to be solved..

FAO studies signal that the present agricultural production capacity could feed 12 million human beings -  that is almost twice the size of the present world population. Nevertheless there is now a food crisis, because production is no longer geared to the well-being of humanity but to markets, speculation and profits for big producers and food traders.  In order to deal with the food crisis,  agriculture  run by families, peasant farmers and communities must be strengthened. We, the developing countries, must regain the right to regulate our imports and exports, in order to secure food for our population.

We have to do away with unbridled consumption, waste and luxury. On the poorest part of our planet, people die of starvation by the millions every year. On the richest side millions of dollars are spent to fight obesity. We consume too much, we mismanage natural resources and we create waste which contaminates Mother Earth.

Every country should set the consumption of food grown at close distance as a priority.  A product that crosses half of the globe to reach its destination is often less expensive to the consumer than the same product grown nearby. But if we include the cost of environmental impact of transport in the price,  the cost of fuel and carbon gas emission, then we will see that it would be healthier both for the planet and for humankind to buy food grown in the vicinity.

Foreign trade should only be a complement to domestic production. We should in no way privilege the external market to the detriment of our  national production.

Capitalism strives to streamline us to become mere consumers. For the North, there is only one single development model  -  its own. In the wake of such a single track economic model  follows a process of  generalised acculturation, which imposes one single culture, one single fashion, one single line of thinking and one single frame of mind. To destroy a culture and jeopardise the identity of a people is the most serious  damage that can be done to humanity.

The respect for and the peaceful and harmonious co-existence  of different cultures and economies are essential to save the planet,  humankind and life itself.

If the current trade talks are truly to be a round of talks for development,  anchored in the present and the future of humankind and the planet, they should:

-          Guarantee the participation of developing countries in all WTO meetings and discontinue the so called green room meetings [ * ] ;

-          Start real asymmetric negotiations for the benefit of developing countries, to which the developed countries would make important concessions;

-          Make allowance for the interests of developing countries,  letting them determine and carry out their own national policies in the area of agriculture, industry and services;

-          Reduce protectionist intervention and subsidies in the developed countries;

-          Guarantee the rights of developing countries to protect their emerging industries for as long as necessary,  just  as the developed countries did in the past;

-          Guarantee the right of developing countries to determine and control their policies in the service sector, explicitly excluding essential services from the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services  (GATS);

-          Limit the intellectual property monopolies of big companies, promote technological transfer and out-rule patents on the living;

-          Guarantee food sovereignty of countries by allowing them to regulate their food exports and imports;

-          Adopt measures to contain consumption and squandering of natural resources,  to eliminate green house gases and  waste production  detrimental to Mother Earth.

In this 21st century a round of development talks can no longer be a round of free trade talks. It must, on the contrary, aim at trade which creates a balance between countries and regions and Mother Nature, by setting up indicators to evaluate and correct trade rules so that they are in compliance with sustainable development.

Those of us who are governing have an enormous responsibility towards our populations. Agreements such as those of the WTO should be known and discussed among the general public, and not just among ministers,  business leaders and “experts”. We, the peoples of the world, must cease to remain passive victims of the outcome of  trade talks and we must instead actively shape our present and our future.

Evo Morales Ayma, President of the Republic of Bolivia

Green room meeting =  indicates the informal WTO meetings, held in a green room, in which only a group of 35 countries, designated by the Director General, take part.

(Alterinfo, 22/07/2008)