No
Santa Claus for the Caribbean in Hong Kong
By Sir Ronald Sanders
Caribbean Net News
KINGSTON
Petroleumworld.com 01 08 05
There
was no Santa Claus and no early Christmas gift to Caribbean
countries from the Sixth Ministerial Conference of the World
Trade Organisation (WTO) held in Hong Kong from December 13th
to 18th.
If
Caribbean delegations left Hong Kong with a deep sense of disappointment,
there was good reason for it. Nothing was on offer to meet the
special needs of the Region’s small and vulnerable economies.
And, if anything, what emerged from the Hong Kong discussion
was that a number of other developing countries do not agree
that the Region should be treated differently.
This
is very troubling for the countries of the Caribbean Community
and Common Market (CARICOM) and it should call for an urgent
re-think of their strategy for the WTO negotiations as well
as measures to strengthen trade links amongst each other.
The
Conference itself had no great ambition for success in advancing
what is called the Doha round of negotiations. Prior to the
meeting, Pascal Lamy, the Director-General of the WTO, and John
Tsang, the Conference Chairman, had lowered the expectations
of the meeting just so it would not be called a failure.
But,
a rose, called by another name, is still a rose. And, this round
of negotiations was always supposed to have “development”
as its central objective. That objective has never been seriously
pursued. In this connection, Hong Kong was as much a failure
as Cancun and Seattle before it.
Messrs
Lamy and Tsang knew that there would be great difficulty over
the removal of agricultural subsidies. The US had announced
its readiness to reduce the huge subsidies it pays to its farmers
for a range of products if others – specifically the EU
– would do the same.
But,
as it has done for years, France paralyzed any movement by the
EU, and its chief negotiator, Peter Mandelson, went through
most of the Hong Kong meeting with his ears firmly glued to
negotiations that were taking place not in the WTO but in Brussels
where a parallel meeting of the EU Heads of Government was taking
place. For the outcome of that meeting dictated what cards Mr
Mandelson was handed.
The
EU meeting was concerned with settling a Budget over the period
2007-2013 for the Union of 25 nations, and there were two principal
issues that bedevilled it.
First,
Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wanted to hold on
to as much of a rebate of the UK’s contributions to the
EU as he could. The former Conservative Party Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher, had negotiated the rebate, and to many in
Britain it had become a kind of symbol of triumph over Europe
–particularly Germany and France.
Mr
Blair was faced with two difficulties: in domestic politics,
a Labour leader could not be seen to surrender what a Conservative
leader had won; and in European politics, he was the Chairman
of the meeting and the current EU President. If the EU summit
failed to agree a Budget under his Chairmanship because he would
not agree to give up a substantial part of Britain’s rebate,
he would have been accused of sinking an already unsteady EU
ship.
In
the end, at much to his political cost in Britain, Mr Blair
held steady to the worthiness of the European project, and agreed
to give up 10.5 billion Euros of Britain’s rebate over
seven years to aid new and needy members of the EU.
The
second issue came to back to France and its obstinate position
on not cutting subsidies to its farmers. President Jacques Chirac
refused to budge on this issue until Britain surrendered a substantial
portion of its rebate.
Then
he agreed that subsidies would be phased out but not until 2013.
The US, Brazil, Australia and others wanted 2010.
Nonetheless,
it was this movement by France which allowed Mr Mandelson to
make an offer in Hong Kong to end agricultural subsidies by
2013.
The
offer is not unconditional, and may yet not happen. Seven years
is a long time in international politics. The EU says its elimination
of subsidies is subject to an end to US food aid and export
credits as well as the closure of government-owned monopoly
grain traders in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
What
this all goes to prove is that deals stitched-up between the
big and powerful countries of the world are still what hold
for a global agenda.
If
France, the UK and Germany did not agree in Brussels on a deal
for the EU Budget, including the phasing out of agricultural
subsidies by 2013, the representatives of the other 146 countries
at the WTO in Hong Kong would have had no movement whatsoever.
Developing
countries simply lack the unity and organization to negotiate
in their collective interest against the developed nations,
hence the big and powerful rule. Unfortunately, this seems to
apply even to the WTO where the principle of one country, one
vote is maintained and any group of countries could stall negotiations
until their concerns are satisfactorily addressed.
And,
let there be no mistake about it, the Caribbean got only promises
to look for answers to their problems with no certainty that
such answers will be provided. For instance, paragraph 21 of
the Hong Kong Declaration reads in relation to market access
for non-agriculture: “We note the concerns raised by small,
vulnerable economies, and instruct the Negotiating Group to
establish ways to provide flexibilities for these Members without
creating a sub-category of WTO Members”.
In
other words, there should be no special category for “small
and vulnerable economies” such as the Caribbean which
is precisely what it needs, and Ministers are asked to provide
“flexibilities” – whatever that means. A special
category for small and vulnerable economies similar to the category
for Least Developed Countries with appropriate rules for special
and different treatment would have given the Region the chance
of extending preferential markets for its key commodities such
as sugar, bananas and rice.
While
Caribbean Ministers would have fought hard to get language in
the Declaration that reflected the issues that harm small economies,
paragraph 41 only took note of the work programme on small economies
and their specific proposals and asked that “responses”
be provided by 31 December 2006.
Worryingly,
in the report of the Chairman of the Committee on non-agriculture
market access, it was reported that small and vulnerable economies
stressed that they had characteristics which warranted special
attention, but “there (was) a serious divergence of opinion
among developing Members”.
Further,
when African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries put forward
a list of products on which they wanted preferences in the EU
and US market, the Chairman of the Committee reported: “This
subject is highly divisive precisely because the interests of
the two groups of developing Members are in direct conflict”.
So
Ministers are scheduled to meet again in Geneva next March to
figure out how to advance this Doha round of negotiations on
“development”.
At
that meeting should the Caribbean not dig in its heels and refuse
to budge unless its gets real concessions as small and vulnerable
economies? If France alone can hold the world hostage to the
fortunes of its already wealthy farmers, should the Caribbean
not hold out for its own?.
(responses
to: ronaldsanders29@hotmail.com)
Sir Ronald Sanders, a former Caribbean diplomat, now corporate
executive, who publishes widely on small states in the global
community
Caribbean
Net News
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Copyright © 2006 Caribbean
Net News.
All rights reserved
