Global Policy Forum

By Someshwar Singh

The much-awaited second draft of the Ministerial text for Doha released on Saturday 27 October appears to have exacerbated, instead of diminishing, the disappointment of many developing countries. All that talk of a "Development Round" seems to have suddenly fizzled out. Systemic concerns of `fairness' and `balance' in the trading order as exemplified by the WTO rules and their implementation appear to have been brushed aside in the zeal to pronounce a new round of trade negotiations being fervently pushed by the major industrialised nations and the WTO DG.

Some of the developing country trade diplomats contacted for reaction to the second Draft Ministerial Declaration expressed a range of emotions - from "shock" to "profound disappointment." Behind the ambiguous language that now decorates the draft Ministerial text, it is almost as if a "fait accompli" has been handed down in terms of what may happen in Doha. Most delegations are now in the process of preparing a formal response (for 31 October) to the latest version which is supposed to be transmitted to Ministers for their consideration in Doha from 9-13 November.

Perhaps the single biggest element of "shock" to many developing countries, including the block of the LDCs (Least Developed Countries), is the "fait accompli" concerning the so-called Singapore or new issues - investment, competition, trade facilitation and government procurement. The way the latest draft has been crafted by the General Council Chairman in co-operation with the Director General of the WTO, it appears there will be negotiations on these issues instead of just the adoption of a "study process" which the LDCs and many developing countries have been advocating firmly time and again.

The Chairman's text, as it stands now, appears to have sealed the debate on whether or not there should be a new round, much less a development round. It would appear that Doha is now set to launch not just a round but a "comprehensive" round.

Obviously, the rank and file of developing countries until now have presented a common front on a number of issues and on a number of occasions. These manoeuvres on text can also be seen as an attempt to cause fissures in their ranks. "Balance" and "fairness" will perhaps be seen and made to be seen from different rays of the prism's light. But that would still not be able to mask the basic comments, concerns and interests of a large number of developing countries, expressed by them during the various consultations held by the Chairman of the General Council on the Draft of 26 September 2001. In particular, the concerns and objections by the Least-Developed Countries (LDCs) and the Africa Group have been ignored. This is deplorable and the developing countries, including the LDCs, can rightly reject the present draft as a basis for further negotiations.

What is even more worrisome is that by deciding to "transmit" the present draft as it is to Doha, the positions of the Ministers from developing countries, including the LDCs, could also be "prejudiced." There are no `options' contained in the latest draft, except in the separate Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, which contains option one being pushed by a grand coalition of developing countries and the second option which is preferred by the United States and Switzerland, with the tacit consent of a number of other industrialised nations. It is really putting the Ministers in a spot, even though the first page of the latest Draft Ministerial Declaration says clearly that "This draft does not purport to be agreed in any part at this stage."

Not that everyone was happy with the Chairman's first Ministerial draft. But this second text, in the eyes of many developing country diplomats, has clearly tilted the balance in favour of accommodating the interests of a few major trading nations. For example, in the case of environment, it was only very few countries which were asking for negotiations, not the majority. But the concerns of the few find a prominent place in the revised text. Similarly, the concerns raised over "anti-dumping" actions, because of American pressure, have evinced a `clarification' process which could lead to negotiations being delayed for a long time.

So what is the difference between pre-Seattle and pre-Doha? Some trade diplomats feel there is really not much difference, except that at Seattle, the situation may have been a shade better as there were options and brackets included, as opposed to the much limited options being offered now. "The strength of our needs have been weakened and where we wanted things to be weaker, they have been strengthened," a developing country trade diplomat pointed out.

Moreover, others point out that if the text is transmitted to Doha in its present form, it is not going to be helpful to the process in Doha. There could be another `Seattle' there. The chances of launching a round may be in doubt, if not completely foreclosed.

For a number of developing countries who have been actively engaged in the run-up to Doha, even `profound disappointment' may be a mild diplomatic expression. In reality, they may have just been taken for a ride and now be forced into a `damage-control' exercise. Which really means that the whole process of confidence-building was just a ruse to get them all back on to the negotiating table as all their good-faith efforts appear to have been ignored.

Of course, there is still a chance that Ministers may address some of the systemic concerns that have been raised about the multilateral trading system, concerns that have been raised again and again in recent months at gatherings of the trade ministers of developing countries, and most recently by the Group of 77 and China on 23 October (the Declaration is included in this issue of the South Bulletin). Maybe that is asking for a miracle at Doha. If that does not happen, that would certainly mean more fuel for the anti-globalisation and anti-WTO movement by our global civil society.

Perhaps the litmus test of Doha's success will be the extent to which the concerns and hopes of the LDCs are taken on board in the Ministerial Declaration (please refer to Media Background 06 in the South Centre website for the statement of the Co-ordinator of the LDCs on the first Draft, described on the whole as "extremely disappointing"). There is much that LDCs and other developing countries have already compromised in terms of their economic development. Now it remains to be seen the kind of compromises the developed world is willing to make. That really should reflect the kind of consensus that should emerge from Doha.

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 § 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.