Global Policy Forum

By Adriano Campolina Soares*

The World Trade Organisation's ministerial conferences have demonstrated a considerable willingness on the part of developing countries to build alliances among themselves as a way of countering the hegemony of the rich countries during trade negotiations.

This willingness is extremely important since the core of the WTO is dominated by North America and Europe, insofar as the bilateral agreements between the United States and the European Union – the Blair House agreements – became the basis for concluding the Uruguay Round of GATT. This terrible start resulted in trade agreements openly favourable to the rich countries. The inequalities set into the WTO agreements reflected the overwhelming power of the rich countries. However, developing countries quickly learnt that redressing the unfairness found in the trade agreements meant adopting a new negotiating posture. The United States and the European Union had to be prevented from imposing their agreements on other members; at the same time, developing countries had to build solid alliances focused on specific negotiating proposals.

This new posture has gradually emerged from elements such as the demonstrations in Seattle and the proposals on access to medications presented in Doha. However, this new posture acquired firm shape in Cancun. Resisting yet another attempt by the two big economic forces to impose an unfair agreement, Brazil, India, South Africa and China headed the creation of the G20, based around an alternative proposal for agriculture. Another group which had been set up earlier was the G33, led by Indonesia and which focused on proposals for special and differential treatment and special products. Finally, the least developed countries (LDCs) joined other countries from Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific during the Cancun conference to form the G90. These new groups have prevented the joint proposal of the United States and EU from becoming the basis for agricultural negotiations. The new negotiating posture has also prevented the rich countries from pushing forward their demands on new issues (particularly the inclusion of investments in negotiations). As a result, Cancun not only saw an agenda damaging to the rich countries succesfully blocked, it also saw the emergence of a new power dynamics within the WTO. The resumption of negotiations gave rise to the novelty of a negotiating group formed by Australia, Brazil, the United States, India and the European Union. This group transformed into a core nucleus for approving the July 2004 framework. In addition, a dialogue was begun between the different groups. Despite the importance of the presence of Brazil and India in the decision-making nucleus, a series of challenges has arisen from this new dynamic within the WTO.

First, the exclusion of the other groups of developing countries is unacceptable. Second, there is a risk of reproducing a format of making decisions in small groups, excluding the participation of other members and further entrenching an undemocratic form lacking in transparency.

In order for the new dynamics emerging from Cancun to be transformed into an opportunity for fairer trade rules, the dialogue within and between the groups of developing countries must be deepened. Should this fail to take place, it is unlikely that developing countries will succeed in counter-balancing the dominance of the rich countries. Finally, the challenge remains of determining precisely which agenda motivates these groupings. The trade agendas of many developing countries have been heavily dominated by the interests of farm export groups, with a disproportional emphasis on access to markets.

We believe these new groupings represent the chance to bring elements such as special and differentiated treatment and special products to the centre of negotiations, capable of producing benefits for millions of excluded farmers in the South. This challenge can be met by civil society alone – in particular by social movements from developing countries actively disputing the content of trade policies. In this way, we can be sure these groups will go beyond an agenda of liberalisation and market access, bringing the search for space for public development policies to the centre of their proposals.

About the author: Adriano Campolina Soares is ActionAid's international director for the Americas.

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.