| Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, November 15, 2001 |
Why Have WTO Ministers Made It in Doha? |
|
After six days of tough bargaining, world trade ministers Wednesday finally emerged from the shadow of the Seattle fiasco, striking a deal in the Qatari capital on a development agenda for new trade liberalization talks.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
After six days of tough bargaining, world trade ministers Wednesday finally emerged from the shadow of the Seattle fiasco, striking a deal in the Qatari capital on a development agenda for new trade liberalization talks.
The Fourth World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference, originally scheduled to end Tuesday afternoon, had to be extended well into late Wednesday due to remaining wide gaps in agreement between the South and the North, and nations across the Atlantic.
In a declaration, trade ministers of the 142 WTO members committed themselves to expanding the new talks on agriculture and services, which have existed since they began in January 2000 in Geneva.
They also agreed to launch negotiations on other new areas -- tariffs on non-industrial products, environment, patents and drugs, and such new issues as investment and competition policies, government procurement and labor standards.
All the issues covered, except for patents and public health, were the same as those which daunted the last WTO attempt to launch a new round of trade talks in Seattle two years ago.
So, why have WTO trade ministers managed a deal in Doha?
Delegates here said the slowing world economy, the current world-wide war against terrorism and compromises made by rival camps, among other things, led to a successful Doha conference.
Due to threats of a global economic recession sparked by the September 11 terrorist attacks in the U.S., almost all the developed countries, particularly the U.S. and the European Union (EU), were keen to further free up world trade.
"The timing and location of this ministerial meeting are hugely significant," EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, the lead EU negotiator told reporters Wednesday. "September 11 served to focus all our minds on the need to send a strong political signal of confidence in the multilateral system and the need to inject optimism into a gloomy economic landscape."
"I think it (the attack) encouraged us all to look beyond our narrow horizons, and to think about the bigger picture," he said.
Unlike the Seattle meeting, both the U.S. and the EU showed more sincerity and flexibility in Doha in seeking common ground on new trade talks, with the former dropping off labor standards from its negotiating agenda.
In Seattle, the U.S. Administration of former President Bill Clinton, in an attempt to woo labor unions in the 2000 general elections, insisted that labor standards should be included in a new round. This irritated many developing countries.
For its part, the EU made a compromise on launching negotiations on phasing out its huge farm export subsidies, thus clearing a major hurdle blocking consensus on the agenda.
Meanwhile, well aware of the importance of the multilateral trading system, the developing countries were positive in pre-Doha consultations.
"We (developing nations) need the multilateral trade system far more than the rich countries," said Tanzanian Trade Minister Iddi Simba.
Prior to Doha, the U.S. and EU repeatedly warned that they would continue their agenda through bilateral agreements after failure to agree on a comprehensive new round.
But whether a new round would soon inject vitality into the faltering world economy to the benefit of both developed and developing countries is still unknown.
Oxfam, an international non-governmental organization, warned that a broad trade agenda could exacerbate poverty and inequity as negotiations on investment and competition would make developing countries' markets more open to powerful multinationals.
|
|
|
|