Global Policy Forum

By Marin Khor
Executive Director of Third World Network

There has been an important development at the WTO. It is the formal sending of a letter dated 6 November by 11 developing countries to the WTO chairman Ambassador Ali Mchumo of Tanzania, expressing their concern over the lack of transparency in the WTO regarding the process of preparations for Seattle. They criticised the "Green Room" process in which only a small group of countries are invited by the Director General (or in a few cases by the Chairman) to draft or discuss compromise texts of specific issues. The vast majority of developing countries are kept out of the process.

"This is not just one more concern among others but rather an issue central to the goal of integrating all Members meaningfully into the work of the Organisation," said the letter, signed by the Missions of Bolivia, Honduras, Cuba, Mauritius, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Uganda, Paraguay, Panama, Djibouti.

"We have been unhappy about the manner in which relatively small groups are convened for substantive discussions with yourself or the Director General, on specific portions of the draft Ministerial Declaration---the so-called green room meetings. We believe the shortage of information and reporting to Members regarding these meetings, both before and after their occurrence, leads to unnecessary divisiveness and rancor. The process of invitation to the small meetings is also highly unsatisfactory. The interested delegations themselves must decide if they have enough interest or stake in a topic to participate in the small-group discussions, or even be informed that the meeting will take or has taken place."

The 11 countries in their letter also made some proposals for improving the participation and transparency of the process, including: "If group size is seen as a barrier to a dynamic and evolving discussion, several small meetings, round-robin style, will be required. Efficiency may suffer. Arbitrary exclusion in discussion, however, is not an option."

This letter is a very significant move. As you know from previous information sent by use to you, many countries have already complained openly (at meetings) and in the corridors. Now it is in a formal letter which ends by requesting a response from the Chairman.

The reference to efficiency is important. In the past the Directors General of WTO and GATT have argued that it would be impossible to have detailed discussions with every Member present, as it would be too time consuming! It would be "inefficient." Thus a small group should be selected to negotiate on behalf of everyone. Although they admit that the element of participation suffers, yet this is an inevitable cost, because the goal of "efficiency" (ie reaching decisions in a short time) has to be met.

The standard establishment argument by the leading players (and Secretariat) in WT is that there is a trade off between efficiency and participation and that when time is pressing (as like now) efficiency is the important factor and participation must give way. In other words, democracy can be disbanded with in the name of finishing the job in time!

The eleven countries are now putting formally on paper their objection to this: "Efficiency may suffer. Arbitrary exclusion is not an option."

In Seattle, this will be a very important thing to look out for. The leading countries and the Secretariat have gone on a publicity blitz on how transparent, open and democratic the WTO is. In the Geneva process now, this is obviously just not true. In Seattle, since many issues are likely to remain unresolved, it is probable that the Green Room process will again be used, with EFFICIENCY again being invoked (as it was in Singapore), ie "We have only four days, and so many unresolved issues for the Ministers to decide, so we need a small group to negotiate on behalf of all."

The public must realise that the claim that the WTO is so open, transparent and democratic is simply a hoodwink and a fraud when INTERNALLY there is no transparency and participation for the vast majority of Members. The holding of a symposium and a dialogue session here and there for NGOs is NOT transparency but a gimmicky attempt to win the public over to "feeling good" about being able to "participate." But "FEEL-GOOD GIMMICKS" cannot bluff a public that is becoming more and more informed in countries around the world.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.