Who’s negotiating what, and for whom?
by Dorval Brunelle, Director, Groupe de recherche sur l’intégration continentale (GRIC/UQAM), and Normand Pépin, Director of Research, Centrale des syndicats démocratiques (CSD).
On behalf of the Québec Network on Continental Integration (RQIC) and the Council of Canadians. The GRIC and the CSD are members of the RQIC.
The Honourable Pierre Pettigrew’s move to invite trade ministers from some 25 member countries of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to a meeting in Montreal from July 28 to 30, 2003, provides an ideal opportunity to showcase the major shortcomings in the current system of global trade negotiations.
With its creation in 1995, the WTO inherited a two-edged problem. One part of the problem involves determining how to establish links between separate, optional agreements negotiated to date on goods (GATT), services (GATS), investment (TRIMS) and intellectual property (TRIPS). The other part of the problem lies in determining the bases on which to undertake negotiations between some 140 disparate, unequal partners.
To address the first challenge, the WTO has decided to apply National Treatment and Most-Favoured Nation rules to all domains, be it goods, services, agriculture or investment. The purpose of this is to skirt exemptions that are deemed to compound international trade barriers rather than alleviate them. To address the second issue, decisions are made not by the majority of members but through a consensus process, which is perceived as a means of ensuring greater flexibility in negotiations.
The WTO’s solutions to these two challenges are not only ill-advised, they are harmful, for two reasons. Firstly, the principle of universality can incur grave injustices, unless its application is tempered by the application of another principle, that of differentiation, which recognizes that the playing field is not level for all the countries involved. It is therefore unacceptable to refuse to consider any provisions for differential treatment, which would allow for the fact that not all things are marketable everywhere, at all times, for all people, in all cases. To avoid creating further injustices, and to reduce inequities rather than add to them, certain differentiations must be clearly identified and defined. At the present time, the WTO’s efforts in this regard are sorely lacking.
Secondly, consensus cannot and must not take the place of democracy, because in the long run, only a democratic process can establish the legality and legitimacy of a principle or standard, and lessen the negative effects of informal groups that inevitably arise to deal with the most contentious issues behind closed doors rather than through a clearly defined, transparent process. At this time, the role that informal groups are playing at the WTO is deplorable.
The decision to hold a Mini-Ministerial clearly illustrates the thorny issues raised above. As regards content, we now know that the major commitments agreed to at Doha cannot be respected for two reasons: first, owing to the protectionism applied by the wealthiest nations; and second, because of the difficulties experienced by poorer nations in implementing the commitments they have undertaken. As regards protocol, there is good cause to question why 25 countries are negotiating among themselves, given that they make up a mere fraction of the membership of the WTO.
The Canadian government has always tried to be a proponent of the multilateral approach, even in the difficult situation we faced at the UN last winter. Why would it suddenly do an about-face in the lead-up to the 5th WTO Ministerial Conference in Cancun next September?
In the meantime, since the Canadian government has often voiced its opposition to the universal application of trade law to certain services, namely education, health and cultural industries, it must reaffirm and reinforce this position in order to garner additional support among WTO partners.
Moreover, the agreements currently being negotiated (WTO, FTAA and other bilateral accords) aim to universalize the private commercialization of all products, services, investments and intellectual property rights regardless of their social, environmental and political importance. Consequently, these negotiations systematically favour the private production and distribution sectors, to the detriment of the public, community and social sectors, which leads to the establishment of veritable charters of rights that protect investors to the detriment of all other economic sectors..
Modelled after existing provisions of NAFTA, the WTO negotiations, like those of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), give the upper hand to private investors by granting them excessive rights, on the pretext that foreign investment must be protected at all costs. Canada’s Minister for International Trade Pierre Pettigrew has himself expressed strong reservations about such provisions, and it would be fitting to raise these reservations again in the upcoming discussions.
Lastly, as a federal Minister and Member of Parliament, the host of this meeting has the responsibility to defend and protect the public interest, not just the interests of a privileged few. In our opinion, in order to defend and protect the public interest, the Canadian government must undertake not to sign any trade agreement unless it provides for a transparent and democratic process of negotiation and adoption; safeguards the government’s power to legislate as necessary to protect the public interest, democracy and the environment; recognizes the primacy of individual and collective rights over trade and profits; and guarantees equal rights for men and women.
These values have been ignored by the WTO, and the organization is headed for defeat at Cancun. This explains why a “Mini-Ministerial” is being held in Montreal. There is a pressing need for action. It remains to be seen whether the most powerful world economies have the political resolve to meet the challenges ahead.
