[asia-apec 496] WTO News Vol. 1, Number 4 (fwd)

[PAN Asia Pacific]

FORWARDED MAIL -------
From: iatp at iatp.org
Date: 23 Jun 98

------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTO News - Vol. 1, Number 4    June 23, 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Table of Contents                           

           - WTO MINISTERIAL MEETING JUDGED DISAPPOINTING
           - RHETORIC REFLECTS NEW PREOCCUPATION WITH TRANSPARENCY
           - AN EVOLVING TRADE SYSTEM
           - THE US TRADE AND AGRICULTURE AGENDA
           - TOWARDS THE 3RD MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE:  USA 1999
           - TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE CONTINUES



WTO MINISTERIAL MEETING JUDGED DISAPPOINTING

Commentators on the second session of the WTO Ministerial Conference, 
held in Geneva 18-20 May, seem united in their view that the meeting 
was inconsequential. Member governments, represented by Heads of State 
and Ministers of Trade and Commerce, reviewed progress on the 
implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements and exchanged views on 
the upcoming agenda of negotiations. Most of their meetings were off 
the record and closed to the public, even to accredited journalists and 
non-governmental organizations.

On May 19th, halfway through the conference, various Heads of State 
gathered to make speeches commemorating the 50th anniversary of the 
coming into force of the multilateral trade system under the original 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Despite marked 
differences in the levels of enthusiasm for the international trade 
system displayed, even such whole-hearted free-traders as President 
Bill Clinton admitted there are problems in the current multilateral 
trade system. The rhetoric has changed a little since 1994.

One of the problems confronting the meeting, it is argued, was that it 
came too soon after the first Ministerial Conference (held in Singapore 
in December 1996) to properly review the working groups created at that 
time, and too early to launch the built-in reviews of several central 
Uruguay Round Agreements. Some reviews, such as for the Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Agreement, are now underway, but many sectors, including 
agriculture, will only start late in 1999 or 2000. 

There were two concrete outcomes of the meetings. One is a Ministerial 
Declaration, agreed in advance by the diplomats that represent their 
governments at the WTO. The declaration is very general. It takes note 
of the financial crisis in Asia and commits its members to support a 
further expansion of the liberal trading system as a response. It also 
includes four recommendations for the General Council’s future work 
program: (1) Implement the existing agreements, including the Marrakech 
Decisions; (2) Make recommendations concerning future work as laid out 
at the first session of the conference in Singapore; (3) Make 
recommendations on the follow-up to the High-Level Meeting on the 
Least- Developed Countries; and (4) Make recommendations arising from 
the consideration of other matters proposed and agreed to by the WTO 
Members. 

The second outcome is a Declaration on Electronic Commerce that binds 
WTO member countries to a no-tariff policy on electronic trade, subject 
to review at the next Ministerial Conference in 1999.

The speeches and final documents of the conference are available on the 
WTO web-site: http://www.wto.org


RHETORIC REFLECTS NEW PREOCCUPATION WITH TRANSPARENCY

Several of the speeches made in the course of the WTO ministerial 
reflect a new level of awareness for the need to make WTO negotiations 
and decision-making more transparent. Those on the inside are concerned 
mostly to “correct misunderstandings”, while those organizing 
demonstrations to demand the abolition of the WTO in the streets 
outside declare the WTO to be an illegitimate endeavor. Hardly anyone, 
however, is unaware of the need for change. 

President Clinton’s speech called for the WTO to “… take every feasible 
step to bring openess and accountability to its operations.” He also 
said, “The United States today formally offers to open up every panel 
that we are a party to – and I challenge every other nation to join us 
in making this happen.”

The Director-General of the WTO, Renato Ruggiero, said, “… you should 
not underestimate the growing pressure on the multilateral trading 
system to give answers to issues which are very real public concerns, 
but ones whose solution cannot rely on the trading system alone… We 
have to improve our ability to respond within our own rules and 
institutions to the interrelationships which undoubtedly exist, showing 
that the different policies required can be mutually supportive rather 
than contradictory… I will devote a considerable part of my time after 
this Conference to try to improve information and dialogue with civil 
society.”

Giving an impression of running somewhat scared in the light of the 
débacle over the negotiations for a Multilateral Agreement on 
Investment at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development 
in Paris, governments and officials were anxious to assure listeners 
that the WTO had heard the message. In Paris and around the world, NGO 
coalitions have successfully raised the alarm about the direction of 
the MAI talks and have generated significant debate in communities and 
in parliaments. While the negotiations are not dead, they have 
certainly been set back quite dramatically, and the governments’ 
failure to reach agreement is in no small measure because of the 
spotlight now shining on the talks. 

The speeches and final documents of the conference are available on the 
WTO web-site: http://www.wto.org


AN EVOLVING TRADE SYSTEM

The GATT club was formed 50 years ago, with 23 member countries in a 
world full of colonies, and a relatively narrow agenda of shared 
issues. Much has changed. While always important for some countries, 
trade has now taken on unprecedented importance in the world economy, 
not least as a result of 15 years or more of radical economic 
adjustment to freer markets and capital movements. The rhetoric in 
Geneva reflected a continued unwillingness among governments to 
directly challenge the supremacy of this neo-liberal paradigm. 

At the same time, many governments pointed out inconsistencies and 
problems with the existing system and asserted that further 
liberalization should not take place without much improved care for 
least developed and otherwise disadvantaged countries. Many speakers 
addressed the strong public reaction against the free trade agenda in 
their respective countries and the need to build economies that are 
less divisive and exclusionary.


THE US TRADE AND AGRICULTURE AGENDA

By choosing its Secretary for Agriculture, Dan Glickman, to head the US 
delegation to the Ministerial Conference, and preparing a full agenda 
of agriculture-related briefings and meetings for the 80 or more agri-
business representatives in Geneva for the conference, the US 
administration was not hiding the importance of agriculture in its 
trade agenda. In the face of trade imbalances (the US importing more 
than it exports), a trend that is likely to worsen as the Asian 
financial crisis continues, the strong US trade surplus in the 
agriculture sector is not something the US administration wants to 
jeopardize. 

On the last day of the Ministerial, the Cairns Group of agricultural 
commodity exporting countries met with US Trade Representative (USTR) 
Charlene Barchefsky and the US Secretary for Agriculture, Dan Glickman. 
While there are differences between the two sides, particularly around 
US criticism of state-trading enterprises which are common among the 
Cairns Group countries, the Group and the US agree that the European 
Union’s Common Agricultural Policy is still a very significant barrier 
to trade. 

While USTR Barchefsky was careful to say that the point was not 
“ganging up” on the EU, Australian Trade Minister Tim Fischer was less 
restrained, saying, “The common target is the Common Agricultural 
Policy of the EU.” Certainly, the fight then brewing about subsidized 
shipments of barley from Finland to the US received a lot of coverage 
in the US, coverage that focused on the continued problem of large EU 
export subsidies for agricultural products. 

Recent changes in US domestic agriculture policy have cut domestic 
support programs. The government has instead promised farmers increased 
prices through expanded demand for their products abroad. Yet the US-
based National Family Farm Coalition issued a press statement in 
Geneva, together with farmers’ organizations from Canada and the 
European Union, that said, “In the United States, as production and 
exports of corn, soybeans, wheat, beef, and milk have all risen, farm 
prices of each commodity have fallen in real and actual terms since 
1982.” Running directly counter to current US, EU and Canadian policy, 
the statement calls for the elimination of direct and indirect export 
subsidies and for the expansion of supply management tools to ensure 
that overproduction and dumping are eliminated. 

For a copy of the statement please contact: National Family Farm 
Coalition in Washington DC, USA <kozer at nffc.net>, the National Farmers’ 
Union in Saskatoon, Canada <nfu at sk.sympatico.ca>, or the Coordination 
Paysanne Européenne in Brussels, Belgium <cpe at agoranet.be>. Sources: 
Ministerial Declaration, Adopted on 20 May 1998, WTO [WT/MIN
(98)/DEC/1]; Cairns Group, US Coordinate Plans for Agriculture 
Liberalization, INSIDE US TRADE, 22 May 1998.


TOWARDS THE 3RD MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE:  USA 1999

One of the few decisions made at the conference was to hold the next 
Ministerial Conference in the US. It is expected that this third 
session of the conference will be held between October and December, 
1999. US Trade Representative Charlene Barchefsky was chosen to chair a 
preparatory process for the next conference. The process will be 
launched at a special session of the WTO General Council session in 
Geneva in September. 

Earlier in 1999, Sir Leon Brittan will finish his term as Vice 
President of the European Commission and EU trade commissioner. Sir 
Leon has been a strong voice for closer US-EU coordination to 
liberalize trade, sometimes against the more cautious voices of other 
EU leaders. It is not yet clear who would be chosen to replace him – 
the office is conferred by the President of the EU, after careful 
political negotiations with all member countries. The EU member 
countries are represented by the European Commission at the WTO, and 
speak with one voice, although they each maintain their own missions to 
the WTO as well.

TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP DIALOGUE CONTINUES

As ministers began to gather in Geneva for the second ministerial on 18 
May, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, EU President Jacques Santer and US 
President Bill Clinton held a joint press conference on US-EU trade 
relations in London. 

These talks have been running stop-start for months, catching on 
sticking points such as trade in agriculture, and then starting up 
again. The statement from the press conference presented a plan that 
covers 12 areas, including: joint work on monitoring compliance with 
WTO agreements; further reductions of industrial tariffs; shared ideas 
on using core labor rights as a model for trade agreements; technical 
barriers to trade; services; government procurement; and intellectual 
property rights. 

Although agricultural commodity trade was included in the plan, the US 
Senate Finance Committee complained afterwards that the plan contained 
nothing substantive in this sector. The reduction of EU tariffs and 
subsidies was not addressed, although many US agribusiness 
representatives consider this area to be a major problem. 

Source: INSIDE US TRADE, Volume 16, No. 20, May 22, 1998

forwarded by:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Produced by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Mark 
Ritchie, President. Author: Sophia Murphy. E-mail versions are 
available electronically free of charge. Institute for Agriculture and 
Trade Policy, 2105 First Ave. So., Minneapolis, MN 55404 USA; 
Telephone: 612-870-0453; Fax:612-870-4846; E-mail: iatp at iatp.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------