WTO deal is unlikely before Hong Kong summit
by - 10.11.2005 16:54
Bello: Oxfam's 'utter nonsense' on WTO
no deal is better than a bad deal
Dear All--
I think that it is very disturbing that Oxfam's call for a deal in Hong Kong is being interpreted as civil society's posture. In fact, it is a minority posture since most everyone else has come around to the conclusion that the only possible deal that could emerge out of Hong Kong is a deal that would have the developing countries make damaging concessions in agriculture, NAMA, and services while the EU and US make cosmetic concessions in agriculture and pursue offensive interests in the other areas. It is utter nonsense for Oxfam to claim that the "world's poor demand a deal in Hong Kong" when the only possible deal in Hong Kong at this point would be a bad deal for the world's poor.
In the future, we would request our friends at Oxfam to make it clear to the press that they are speaking only for themselves and not as representative of trade campaigners or of civil society. We would also request that they not claim to speak for the world's poor but only for themselves.
Walden Bello
Campaigners despair as Brazil and India warn that WTO deal is unlikely before Hong Kong summit
Larry Elliott
Wednesday November 9, 2005
The Guardian
Fears were growing last night that the crucial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Hong Kong next month is heading for failure after Brazil and India warned that the gulf between negotiators was too big to bridge in the five weeks left for the talks.
The leading developing countries said the mid-December deadline for an outline deal to liberalise trade was too soon and that there might have to be a delay or a scaling-back of ambition for the round launched in Doha, Qatar, four years ago.
For the first time, Brazil suggested ministers would make little progress next month. "We may need a Hong Kong II," the trade minister, Celso Amorim, said.
Peter Mandelson, the European Union's trade commissioner, said he was still pressing for a wide-ranging agreement when all the WTO's 148 members meet in Hong Kong between December 13 and 18.
"The moment you start reducing expectations, you risk introducing complacency," Mr Mandelson said, as about 20 WTO participants started two days of talks in Geneva. "We should keep up the pressure to narrow the differences."
Trade campaigners also expressed concern at the downbeat statements from Brazil and India following five-party talks in London that also included the United States, the European Union and Japan. With developing countries seeking further concessions from the west in agriculture, and Washington and Brussels demanding better market access for their manufacturing and service-sector firms, the London talks ended without agreement.
Céline Charveriat, head of Oxfam International's Make Trade Fair campaign, said: "Now is not the time to scale down ambition. The world's poor need a deal in Hong Kong ... Every day of delay is another day of suffering for millions.
"The talks are not on track but it is not too late to rescue them. All players need to focus on what was promised four years ago: reform of world trade rules that boosts development. To shift the goalposts now and say the meeting in Hong Kong doesn't matter is unacceptable," said Ms Charveriat.
Pascal Lamy, the WTO director general, hopes intensive talks this week will break the deadlock in the talks, with compromises from all players leading to a draft declaration for Hong Kong being tabled within the next fortnight. He warned WTO members that there was "no Plan B" if the Hong Kong meeting repeated the failures of Seattle in 1999 and Cancun in 2003, and that the costs of a "non-round" could be hundreds of billions of pounds.
Both Mr Mandelson and Rob Portman, the US trade envoy, said after the London talks that they were pleased the meeting had not focused exclusively on agriculture. "It was a constructive discussion. This is all about working towards a consensus. It's not easy," said Mr Portman.
India wants the main emphasis to be on agriculture - its major trade sector - and on providing poor nations with the help they need to build their economies.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1637256,00.html
I think that it is very disturbing that Oxfam's call for a deal in Hong Kong is being interpreted as civil society's posture. In fact, it is a minority posture since most everyone else has come around to the conclusion that the only possible deal that could emerge out of Hong Kong is a deal that would have the developing countries make damaging concessions in agriculture, NAMA, and services while the EU and US make cosmetic concessions in agriculture and pursue offensive interests in the other areas. It is utter nonsense for Oxfam to claim that the "world's poor demand a deal in Hong Kong" when the only possible deal in Hong Kong at this point would be a bad deal for the world's poor.
In the future, we would request our friends at Oxfam to make it clear to the press that they are speaking only for themselves and not as representative of trade campaigners or of civil society. We would also request that they not claim to speak for the world's poor but only for themselves.
Walden Bello
Campaigners despair as Brazil and India warn that WTO deal is unlikely before Hong Kong summit
Larry Elliott
Wednesday November 9, 2005
The Guardian
Fears were growing last night that the crucial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Hong Kong next month is heading for failure after Brazil and India warned that the gulf between negotiators was too big to bridge in the five weeks left for the talks.
The leading developing countries said the mid-December deadline for an outline deal to liberalise trade was too soon and that there might have to be a delay or a scaling-back of ambition for the round launched in Doha, Qatar, four years ago.
For the first time, Brazil suggested ministers would make little progress next month. "We may need a Hong Kong II," the trade minister, Celso Amorim, said.
Peter Mandelson, the European Union's trade commissioner, said he was still pressing for a wide-ranging agreement when all the WTO's 148 members meet in Hong Kong between December 13 and 18.
"The moment you start reducing expectations, you risk introducing complacency," Mr Mandelson said, as about 20 WTO participants started two days of talks in Geneva. "We should keep up the pressure to narrow the differences."
Trade campaigners also expressed concern at the downbeat statements from Brazil and India following five-party talks in London that also included the United States, the European Union and Japan. With developing countries seeking further concessions from the west in agriculture, and Washington and Brussels demanding better market access for their manufacturing and service-sector firms, the London talks ended without agreement.
Céline Charveriat, head of Oxfam International's Make Trade Fair campaign, said: "Now is not the time to scale down ambition. The world's poor need a deal in Hong Kong ... Every day of delay is another day of suffering for millions.
"The talks are not on track but it is not too late to rescue them. All players need to focus on what was promised four years ago: reform of world trade rules that boosts development. To shift the goalposts now and say the meeting in Hong Kong doesn't matter is unacceptable," said Ms Charveriat.
Pascal Lamy, the WTO director general, hopes intensive talks this week will break the deadlock in the talks, with compromises from all players leading to a draft declaration for Hong Kong being tabled within the next fortnight. He warned WTO members that there was "no Plan B" if the Hong Kong meeting repeated the failures of Seattle in 1999 and Cancun in 2003, and that the costs of a "non-round" could be hundreds of billions of pounds.
Both Mr Mandelson and Rob Portman, the US trade envoy, said after the London talks that they were pleased the meeting had not focused exclusively on agriculture. "It was a constructive discussion. This is all about working towards a consensus. It's not easy," said Mr Portman.
India wants the main emphasis to be on agriculture - its major trade sector - and on providing poor nations with the help they need to build their economies.
http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1637256,00.html
