|
The Odd Genesis of a Working Group on Labour
A working group on trade and labour was established
on 2 December under unusual circumstances. Although the United
States and the European Union had both tabled proposals for a group
to examine this contentious issue, neither proposal figured on any
of the ministerial draft texts, and thus did not fall under the
mandate of any of the WTO negotiating groups. Hong Kong requested
information on the status of the proposals in order to make sure
that no eleventh hour surprise would be produced at a stage when it
would be too late to refuse it without undoing the entire Seattle
results. As a result of this request, a working group, chaired by
Costa Rica, was established to decide whether the Seattle
Ministerial Declaration should contain a directive to set up some
kind of body to look into the trade and labour relationship. The
working group only met for forty minutes. Although no formal
conclusion was reached, it was clear that four-fifths of WTO Members
firmly opposed the creation of any such body. Discussions continued
in small groups late into the night to determine whether some
compromise formulation might be found.
The US proposal to set up a WTO Working Group on
Trade and Labour was practically a non-runner before the
deliberations began, and the more so after President Clinton said on
Wednesday that establishing the working group was only the
Administration's first goal. '[A]nd then that working group should
develop these core labour standards, and then they ought to be part
of every trade agreement, and ultimately I would favour a system in
which sanctions would come for violating any provision of a trade
agreement,' the President said on his arrival in Seattle, surrounded
by angry demonstrators many of whom were trade unionists.
On Thursday, US Trade Representative Barshefsky
tried to reassure developing country delegates that including
sanction-backed labour provisions in WTO provisions was only a
long-term policy goal and not part of the proposed working group's
mandate, but her ensurances clearly failed to convince developing
countries. A way ahead might lie in something along the lines of the
EU's proposal for a Joint ILO/WTO Standing Forum on Trade,
Globalisation and Labour to examine a broad range of issues related
to trade and labour. Commissioner Lamy stressed on Thursday that the
EU did not believe that trade sanctions were an appropriate means of
promoting respect for core labour standards.
Transparency of Negotiations Emerges as a Major
Issue
The WTO should hold a Ministerial Conference just to
determine how to conduct trade negotiations in a transparent yet
efficient manner, EU Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy told the press
on Thursday. While all delegations must be involved in
decision-making, progress on a vast agenda of complex issues would
be impossible to achieve if 135 countries were to seek consensus
without breaking into smaller groups. Transparent, efficient
and multilaterally-agreed negotiating procedures must be put into
place, Commissioner Lamy said.
The present working group/green room system is
perceived as non-inclusive and high-handed about small economies'
concerns, as witnessed by numerous complaints, particularly by the
smaller delegations. Statements were drafted on Thursday by several
Latin American and Caribbean countries, as well as the Organisation
of African Unity on the lack of transparency and participation in
the negotiations. Both draft statements, not yet finalised or
released at press time, expressed concern over 'the stated
intentions to produce a ministerial text at any cost, including the
modification of procedures designed to secure participation and
consensus,' and warned that unless the situation were remedied, the
signatories would not be able to 'join the consensus required to
meet the objectives of this Ministerial Conference'. While it was
unclear late Thursday night whether the statements would actually be
presented, the anger and frustration of the signatories was very
clear indeed.
Sir Shridath Ramphal, a former foreign minister of
Guyana and the Chairman of the Caribbean Communities, expressed
grave concern over the general lack of transparency at the
Ministerial talks. Citing an instance where a Caribbean minister was
barred from attending a Green Room discussion on agriculture,
Ramphal said part of the blame for the process rested with the
WTO. He was also doubtful that there would be any successful
conclusion to the Ministerial. 'This is a conference convened before
its time,' he said.
Ambassador Barshefsky, on the other hand, said that
multilateral trade negotiations had never been conducted in a more
open and participatory manner than in Seattle. Unlike in Singapore,
for instance, there were five (six, with the later-established
labour group) open-ended working groups on clearly-defined subjects
where all Members could participate, instead of small, semi-secret
gatherings of key countries forging text between themselves and
presenting it at the eleventh hour for the approval of Members. As
of Thursday morning, the substance of all bilateral and plurilateral
discussions undertaken by the Chair must be reported to the entire
working group before it is forwarded to the Committee of the
Whole.
Multifunctionality Disappears from Chair's Ag
Draft
A new draft on agriculture was presented on Thursday by the
agriculture working group Chair George Yeo of Singapore. The text
seems a compromise between the positions of the Cairns Group and the
United States, on the one hand, and the European Union on the other.
However, it is not a negotiated draft and changes are likely to be
introduced depending on the outcomes of the other negotiating
groups. The term 'multifunctionality' has disappeared from this
version, which only notes the need to take into account non-trade
concerns, such as food security and rural development. According to
sources close to the negotiations, the European Union could be
prepared to renounce explicit reference to multifunctionality if the
US were to give up the demand to include a reference to the ultimate
goal of bringing trade in agricultural products under the same rules
as trade in other goods.
With regard to market access, the text proposes that
the negotiations should lead to the broadest possible
liberalisation, particularly concerning products of special interest
to developing countries. It also requires reductions in domestic
support. The paragraph on subventions is a sheer wonder of
negotiated compromise: it attempts to reconcile the US/Cairns
position that the Seattle Round should 'eliminate export subsidies'
and the European stance that the negotiations should result in
'reductions in all forms of export assistance' (including export
credits, state guarantees, etc.). This reconciliation effort yields
the following: 'Substantial reductions in all forms of export
subsidies, and equivalent action in respect of the subsidy component
of other forms of export assistance, in the direction of progressive
elimination of export subsidies'.
Developing Countries See Little Movement on
Implementation
According to some observers, much work remains to
be done over 3 December in the working group on
implementation. The US has submitted its own proposal on
implementation and has objected strongly to paragraphs from the
previous 1 December implementation text on subsidies, anti-dumping,
and textiles, contrary to the positions of most delegations.
Developing countries in particular are pushing for movement on
outlining future talks on these and other areas such as
Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and Trade-Related
Investment Measures (TRIMs).
The Chair of the working group, Canadian Trade
Minister Pierre Pettigrew, has sent an updated text to the Chair of
the Committee of the Whole, US Trade Representative Charlene
Barshefsky, for compilation with texts from the other working
groups. The new, scaled-down implementation language contains
proposed immediate decisions, subjects for negotiations, a new plan
of action for the full and effective integration of Least-Developed
Countries (LDCs) into the multilateral trading system and
reinforcement of technical cooperation for developing
countries.
One WTO official described the implementation
document as an improvement over the version released on 1 December,
as it demonstrates 'substantive progress towards the demands made by
developing countries.' Notable among the changes is a
possibility for non-applicability of the WTO Dispute Settlement
system to certain areas of the Agreement on TRIPs and an extension
of deadlines for developing countries' commitments under
TRIPs.
The new text has also moved many of the issues found
on the 1 December version's Annex II (for later decisions) to the
higher priority Annex I (Possible Decisions at Seattle on
Implementation). In addition, there is substantiated text on
LDCs and on technical cooperation that was not on the 1 December
document. One official hinted that negotiations in the
implementation group were linking up with payoffs in Agriculture and
New Issues groups.
The working group on implementation will be meeting
more or less continually through 3 December in an effort to secure
agreement on the contentious
issues.
|
