JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Archives


CRIT-GEOG-FORUM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM Home

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM  December 1999

CRIT-GEOG-FORUM December 1999

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

(wto) SEATTLE DEBACLE: REVOLT OF THE DEVELOPING NATIONS

From:

David Wood <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

David Wood <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:50:40 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (188 lines)

I think this is worth reading...

>Martin Khor
>Third World Network
>
>SEATTLE DEBACLE:  REVOLT OF  THE DEVELOPING NATIONS
>
>By Martin Khor, director, Third World Network
>(http://www.southside.org.sg/souths/twn/twn.htm)
>
>It was an amazing week.  In Seattle the contradictions of globalisation
>revved to a climatic conclusion.   At the end, the WTO Ministerial
>Conference that was supposed to launch a new Round collapsed, suddenly, in
>almost total chaos, like a house of cards.
>
>There is no new Round, no Seattle Declaration, not even a brief joint
>statement to thank the hosts or decide on the follow up process.
>
>In the aftermath, there will be many theories and analyses on what happened.
>Some will focus on the protests by civil society groups representing
>labour, environment, consumer, pro-poor and Third World concerns.  There
>were also the "direct action" activists that blocked delegates' access to
>the Opening Ceremony, that was then cancelled.
>
>The main message of the protestors was heard loud and clear, that the WTO
>has gone much too far in setting global rules that "lock in" the interests
>of big corporations at the expense of developing countries, the poor, the
>environment, workers and consumers.  The impact of grassroots protests
>against globalisation, already evident in the campaigns on the multilateral
>agreement on investment (MAI) and against genetic engineering, had its
>coming-of-age in the street battles of Seattle.
>
>Some will also pin-point the inability of the US and EU to bridge their
>differences as the immediate cause of the collapse.  This was of course a
>significant factor.  The two giants of the trade system were striving for a
>compact in which the EU would agree to significantly reduce their
>agriculture subsidies, and in return the US would agree to start
>negotiations on new issues like investment and competition.
>
>As a last chip, the EC also threw its support to the US to form a WTO
>working group on biotechnology, but this fell foul of the European
>Environment Ministers who objected to the EC's move, for which they said the
>EC had no mandate.  This open spat between the EC and the Ministers further
>muddied the last ditch attempt of the EU and US to agree to a new Round.
>
>However, the more basic cause of the Seattle debacle was the untransparent
>and undemocratic nature of the WTO system, the blatant manipulation of that
>system by the major powers, and the refusal of many developing countries to
>continue to be on the receiving end.
>
>The seeds of the North-South battle were sown in Geneva in the weeks before
>Seattle.  Developing countries voiced their disillusionment that five years
>after the WTO's creation they had not seen any benefits.  Worse, the poor
>countries face potentially enormous dislocation when they implement their
>obligations arising from the WTO's many agreements.
>
>They put forward dozens of proposals to resolve the "problems of
>implementation" of the WTO agreements, including changing some of the rules.
>  But most of their demands were dismissed by the major powers that instead
>pushed for their own proposals to further empower the WTO through
>introducing new areas such as investment, competition, government
>procurement, labour and environmental standards.
>
>The developing countries in general opposed these new issues which they saw
>would open up their markets further to the rich nations' big companies, or
>would give these rich nations new protectionist tools to block Third World
>products from the North.
>
>Worse yet, the WTO Secretariat was used by the major powers to engage in
>untransparent procedures, such as holding informal meetings on crucial
>issues in small groups to which most developing countries were not invited.
>These so-called "Green Room" meetings infuriated the Third World Members of
>the WTO.
>
>At Seattle, in contradiction to her promise to run a transparent meeting,
>the US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky presided over a totally
>undemocratic process.  She announced on the second day her "right" as
>Chairman to use procedures of her own choosing to get a Declaration out of
>the meeting, a statement that infuriated the developing country delegations.
>
>Barshefsky and the WTO director-general Mike Moore set up several
>"GreenRoom" meetings, some running simultaneously, on key issues of
>disagreement.
>Only ten or twenty countries (the major powers plus a few selected
>developing countries) were invited to a typical Green Room meeting.
>
>The plan of the organisers was to get the major powers (manily the US and
>EU) to agree among themselves, then apply pressure in the Green Rooms on a
>few influential developing countries to go along, and then pull together a
>Declaration to launch a new Round which all Members would be coerced to
>accept in a special meeting on the last day.
>
>The vast majority of developing countries were shut out of the whole Green
>Room process.  They were not even informed which meetings were going on or
>what was being discussed.  Ministers and senior officials of most developing
>countries were left hanging around in the corridors or the canteen, trying
>to catch snippets of news or negotiating texts.
>
>Their anger at the insult of being at the receiving end of such shabby
>treatment boiled over on the third day of the Conference.  The African
>Ministers issued a strong statement that there was "no transparency" in the
>meeting, that African countries were generally excluded on issues vital to
>their future, that they were concerned over the intention to produce a
>ministerial text at any cost.  "Under the present circumstances, we will not
>be able to join the consensus required to meet the objectives of this
>Ministerial Conference."
>
>Similar statements were issued by the Carribean Community Ministers and by
>some Latin American countries.
>
>Barshefsky and Moore were thus faced with the prospect that if a draft
>Declaration were presented at a final session, there would be an explosion
>of protests and a rejection by developing nations.  That would totally
>expose to the public and the world media the manipulative methods by which
>the Seattle Conference, and more seriously the WTO in general, had been run.
>
>In the end it was less embarrassing to decide to let the Seattle meeting
>collapse without attempting even a brief Declaration.  But the breakdown
>took place so fast that Barshefsky at the final plenary did not even try to
>get the Ministers to adopt a formal statement on the procedures for follow
>up talks.
>
>All that was left is a transcript of Barshefsky's off-the-cuff closing
>remarks, in which she admitted that "we found that the WTO has outgrown the
>processes appropriate to an earlier time...We needed a process which had a
>greater degree of internal transparency and inclusion to accommodate a
>larger and more diverse membership."
>
>Does the Seattle debacle and Barshefsky's remarks give hope for reform to
>the WTO's decision-making system?   That depends really on whether the
>developing countries can now make use of the impasse to press for a
>democratic system, for example by abolishing the green-room process that
>belongs to the feudal age, and which ultimately sank Seattle.
>
>The big powers will however try hard to cling to their privileges.  Both
>Barshefsky and the EC Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy announced that the WTO
>Director General had now been delegated with the authority to carry forward
>the Seattle process.  Lamy even told the media that Mike Moore would report
>directly back to the Ministers.
>
>The implication is that the post-Seattle negotiations would be led by the
>Director General, who is known to be biased in favour of the major powers,
>rather than the WTO's General Council, the majority of whose Members are
>developing countries.
>
>Are the major powers setting up one more device to control the post-Seattle
>process so that they can re-build the house of cards in line with the same
>old global trade architecture?  And will the developing countries, which
>never agreed to the Barshefsky-Lamy decision to put the already discredited
>Moore in the driving seat, refuse to "join the consensus" and place the
>authority of the follow-up process with the General Council, where it
>appropriately belongs?
>
>These will be some of the immediate issues when the battle of Seattle
>resumes in Geneva.
>
>Ends
>
>Martin Khor is the director of the Third World Network, a grouping of NGOs
>in the developing world involved in development and environment issues.
>

____________________________________________________________________

David Wood
PhD Research Student ('Intelligence Sites in Rural North Yorkshire')
Centre for Rural Economy
Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU

0191 222 5305

[log in to unmask]

____________________________________________________________________

+-----------------------------------------------------------+
|           stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal           |
|    if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig    |
| more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager