SIDANG GC 15 DESEMBER TIDAK MENGHASILKAN BANYAK KEMAJUAN SETELAH CANCUN

•

•

• Diterbitkan oleh Institute for Global Justice (IGJ) Jl. Diponegoro No. 9, Menteng, Jakarta Pusat 10310 Tlp. 021-31931153, Fax. 021-3913956 [email protected], www.globaljust.org Pemimpin Redaksi: Bonnie Setiawan Redaktur Pelaksana: Lutfiyah Hanim Anggota Redaksi: Nur Hidayat, Amalia Pulungan

SIDANG GC 15 DESEMBER TIDAK MENGHASILKAN BANYAK KEMAJUAN SETELAH CANCUN Pada akhirnya sidang General Council yang dimandatkan KTM Cancun di bulan September 2003 lalu yang dihadiri oleh para pejabat senior berlangsung tanggal 15 Desember 2003 di Jenewa. Sidang hari pertama ditandai dengan laporan dari ketua GC, Perez de Castillo yang menyatakan bahwa "Kita melihat sedikitnya terjadi negosiasi yang riel, kesenjangan perbedaan semakin lebar dan nampaknya tidak ada sense of urgency". Akibat tidak adanya perkembangan sepanjang tiga bulan terakhir dalam "konsultasi informal", maka Castillo tidak dapat membuat teks baru yang bisa memajukan proses perundingan setelah gagalnya Cancun. Castillo hanya membuat laporan yang berisikan empat isu kunci, yaitu pertanian, kapas, NAMA (nonagriculture market access) dan isu-isu Singapura. Dalam laporan tersebut, Castillo menyatakan bahwa konsultasi selama ini telah semakin memperdalam substansi. Akan tetapi perbedaan-perbedaan di antara anggota semakin lebar.

•

Dalam isu pertanian, teks Derbez adalah merupakan starting point, di mana struktur dan elemennya "secara umum diterima" meskipun perbedaan tetap ada dalam hal substansi. Dalam isu kapas, perlu dikerjakan tiga hal - prosedur, substansi terkait perdagangan, dan isu-isu terkait pembangunan. Menurutnya, jangan terlalu dipermasalahkan soal prosedural, yaitu apakah sebagai isu yang berdiri sendiri atau merupakan bagian dari perundingan pertanian. Dalam isu NAMA, konsultasi mendasarkan pada teks Derbez sebagai starting point. Menurutnya ada ketidaksepakatan yang kuat atas aspek-aspek kunci di teks Derbez. Ada kesepakatan umum bagi formula type approach (untuk pengurangan tarif), tapi belum ada kesepakatan formula yang spesifik yang akan dipakai. Dalam komponen sektoral, isunya masih "mandatory atau voluntary", dan apakah merupakan modalitas inti atau suplementer. Dalam isu-isu Singapura, ada banyak proposal dan debat tapi tidak ada konsensus. Ia menyarankan untuk terus bekerja "untuk menggali kemungkinan modalitas" untuk dua isu (fasiliutasi perdagangan dan transparansi belanja pemerintah)

Apa yang disampaikan Castillo tidak banyak berbeda dengan posisi dia dalam dua konsultasi HOD sebelumnya. Dalam pertemuan informal HOD yang kedua tanggal 9 Desember 2003 lalu, yang juga dihadiri oleh Dirjen WTO Supachai, hanya berlangsung selama 2 jam. Ia merangkum pertemuan dengan menyatakan bahwa para anggota tidak memperoleh cukup konvergensi guna mengambil "tindakan yang diperlukan untuk menyelesaikan putaran sebagaimana yang diminta oleh para menteri di Cancun". Dalam sidang GC tersebut tidak ada hal yang baru. Satu-satunya yang istimewa adalah dikeluarkannya joint paper baru oleh 44 negara berkembang yang meminta agar tiga isu-isu Singapura di-drop, sementara sepakat satu isu lagi diklarifikasi lebih lanjut, dan bukan 1

Global Justice Up-date, No. 5, Tahun I, 1-15 Desember 2003

sebagai negosiasi (lihat "Drop tiga isu Singapura, kata 44 negara").

plurilateral, karena tidak sesuai dengan organisasi multilateral seperti WTO.

Dalam sidang ini, Dubes Brazil, Luis Felipe de Seixas Correa, berbicara atas nama kelompok G-20, melaporkan hasil pertemuan menteri G-20 di Brazil seminggu yang lalu. Menurutnya, perundingan pertanian perlu menghasilkan "pengurangan substansial dalam dukungan domestik, peningkatan substansial dalam akses pasar, pengakhiran (phasing-out) atas semua bentuk subsidi eksport, serta adanya S&D yang efektif dan operasional yang memperhitungkan pembangunan pedesaan dan konsern ketahanan pangan bagi negara berkembang". Sementara Dubes Bangladesh, Toufiq Ali, berbicara atas nama negara-negara kurang berkembang (LDC), menyatakan bahwa LDC telah dipinggirkan di dalam perdagangan dunia, dan "bahkan proses industrialisasi kami berada dalam ancaman". Menurutnya teks Derbez dapat menjadi basis perundingan, dengan perubahan yang diperlukan di bidang pertanian dan NAMA. Perubahan besar diperlukan atas teks tentang kapas, yang memerlukan perhatian khusus dan prioritas tertinggi. (BS)

Paper ini diajukan oleh Bangladesh (atas nama negara-negara LDC yang berjumlah 28 negara), Botswana, Cina, Kuba, Mesir, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Filipina, Tanzania, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia dan Zimbabwe. Kata paper tersebut, "Para sponsor paper ini yakin bahwa disiplin yang mengikat atas isu-isu Singapura bukan saja akan membatasi ruang kebijakan bagi negara-negara berkembang, akan tetapi juga meminta ongkos yang besar, yang tidak dapat dipenuhi oleh negara-negara berkembang dalam level pembangunannya sekarang … Kita seharusnya memusatkan upaya kita pertama-tama dan terutama kepada isu-isu yang merupakan kompetensi inti dari WTO, yaitu pertanian, akses pasar nonpertanian, jasa-jasa dan isu-isu pembangunan".

Sumber: Martin Khor, "WTO General Council convenes, with little progress and wide gaps", TWN Report, Geneva, 15 December 2003; "Doha Round: Talks stall, negotiating groups to resume in 2004", BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest, vol. 7, no. 42, 11 December 2003.

DROP TIGA ISU SINGAPURA, KATA 44 NEGARA 44 negara berkembang mengeluarkan komunikasi formal dalam sidang General Council berjudul "Singapore Issues: The Way Forward", dan menuntut agar "semua kerja" atas tiga isu-isu Singapura, yaitu investasi, kebijakan kompetisi, dan transparansi belanja pemerintah, untuk didrop. Sementara itu isu yang ke-empat, yaitu fasilitasi perdagangan, bisa dilanjutkan tetapi hanya klarifikasi atas berbagai aspek, dan bukan ke arah negosiasi. Negara-negara tersebut juga menolak dengan jelas pendekatan

Dalam hal isu fasilitasi perdagangan, dikatakan, "jangan ada usaha untuk menyepakati terlebih dulu (early harvest) fasilitasi perdagangan sebelum adanya kemajuan dalam isu-isu utama program kerja Doha … demikian pula setelah selesainya proses klarifikasi, keputusan baru dapat diambil dalam hal modalitas setelah melalui konsensus eksplisit, sebelum dijalankannya negosiasi. Paper ini adalah hasil yang cukup panjang dari perdebatan-perdebatan di pertemuan konsultasi sebelumnya yang tidak mencapai kesepakatan, terutama konsultasi tanggal 4-5 Desember 2003. Terutama karena desakan dari UE, Kanada, AS dan Swiss yang mendukung formula "2+2" sebagaimana usulan ketua GC. Sementara kebanyakan negara berkembang lebih condong untuk mempertimbangkan isu fasilitasi perdagangan, dan men-drop tiga isu lainnya. Selanjutnya dalam pertemuan HOD tanggal 9 Desember, ketua GC menyatakan bahwa konsultasi tentang Singapore issues akan berlanjut di tahun 2004, dan ia mengindikasikan kemungkinan bagi pengerjaan modalitas dalam dua isu, yaitu fasilitasi perdagangan dan transparansi belanja pemerintah. Nampaknya manuver dari ketua GC ini 2


akhirnya dibalas dengan aksi dari 44 negara ini dengan mengeluarkan paper resmi mereka di sidang GC kali ini. Mudahmudahan Singapore issues kali ini betulbetul dibuang. (BS)

•

Sumber: Martin Khor, "Drop all further work on 3 Singapore issues, say 44 Developing Countries", TWN Report, Geneva, 15 December 2003; "Doha Round: Talks stall, negotiating groups to resume in 2004", BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest, vol. 7, no. 42, 11 December 2003.

Dubes Republik Dominika, Claudia Hernandez menyatakan, walaupun ketua GC telah menjamin diterimanya konsep tersebut dalam negosiasi, hal itu belumlah cukup. Katanya, "Tidaklah cukup konsep ini ada di dalam teks … yang penting bagi kami adalah produk-produk spesial dikecualikan dari pengurangan tarif dan dari komitmen TRQ lanjutan". Selanjutnya Gusmardi dan Hernandez menyatakan bahwa para anggota harus mempunyai fleksibilitas untuk memilih produk-produk mana dan berapa banyak produk yang ditetapkan sebagai produk spesial, karena adanya perbedaan di antara negara-negara dalam hal struktur pertaniannya, lokasi geografisnya, dan kondisi-kondisi lain. Teks Derbez menyatakan bahwa konsep SP hanya diberlakukan atas kategori pertama (yaitu lini tarif dikurangi berdasarkan nilai rata-rata). Menurut aliansi, hal ini tidak bisa diterima. Konsep SP/SSM harus berdiri sendiri dan independen dari setiap formula yang akan dibuat. Dubes Srilangka, Weerasinghe bahkan menyatakan bahwa negara berkembang harus dapat menggunakan SSM untuk setiap produk pertaniannya, baik itu ditetapkan sebagai SP atau tidak. Selama ini di dalam perjanjian pertanian WTO, kebanyakan negara berkembang tidak dapat menggunakan klausa special safeguard karena dianggap tidak layak. "ketidaksetaraan seperti ini harus dikoreksi", katanya lagi.

PENDEKATAN SP/SSM MASUK DALAM NEGOSIASI Dalam sidang GC 15 Desember 2003, nampaknya konsep SP/SSM masuk menjadi negosiasi. Hal ini menjadi jelas setelah ketua GC Castillo menyinggung tentang Special and Differential Treatment lewat konsep special products (SP) dan special safeguard mechanism (SSM) yang telah menjadi bagian dari pendekatan negosiasi. Akan tetapi kondisi-kondisi dan produk-produknya masih akan ditentukan kemudian. Sebelumnya masih ada kekhawatiran bahwa konsep ini tidak mendapat perhatian dalam proses konsultasi. Hal ini disampaikan oleh Gusmardi Bustami, Dubes Indonesia di WTO, yang memimpin 33 anggota delegasi SP/SSM dalam konsultasi tanggal 5 Desember dengan ketua GC, Castillo. Aliansi ini oleh Ketua GC telah dijamin bahwa konsep SP/SSM "akan tetap ada, apapun framework yang akan dihasilkan dalam negosiasinegosiasi". Aliansi SP/SSM menegaskan elemen dasar bagi adanya solusi yang memuaskan atas SP/SSM sebagai berikut: • Negara-negara berkembang perlu mempunyai fleksibilitas untuk menetapkan sendiri (self-designed) produk-produk SP-nya; • SP merupakan kategori yang berdiri sendiri dan dikecualikan dari pengurangan tarif dan komitmen baru berkenaan dengan tariff rate quota (TRQ)

•

Harus diadakan special safeguard mechanism (SSM) bagi negara-negara berkembang; dan SP harus mempunyai akses otomatis atas SSM

Anggota aliansi SP/SSM adalah Barbados, Botswana, Cina, Kuba, Kongo, Cote D'Ivoire, Republik Dominika, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Jamaika, kenya, Korea, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mozambik, Nikaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Filipina, Senegal, Srilangka, Tanzania, Trinidad dan Tobago, Turki, Uganda, Venezuela, Zambia dan Zimbabwe. (BS) Sumber: Martin Khor, "WTO General Council convenes, with little progress and wide gaps", TWN Report, Geneva, 15 December 2003; Martin 3


Khor, "Trade: EC's apparent shift on Singapore issues sours trade facilitation meet", SUNS No. 5477, 8 December 2003.

BUSH AKHIRNYA MENCABUT TARIF IMPOR BAJA Amerika Serikat mendapat tekanan dari berbagai pihak. Setelah menampilkan sikap mendua dalam kebijakan perdagangan global - selalu meminta penurunan tarif impor atas produknya ke negara lain, terutama negara berkembang, akan tetapi tarif impor dalam negerinya tetap tinggi kini tekanan dalam negeri semakin menguat. Uni Eropa menyatakan kembali ancamannya untuk mengenakan sangsi milyaran dollar sebagai aksi pembalasan terhadap produk-produk AS kecuali pemerintahan Bush mencabut tarif-tarif yang menurut keputusan badan penyelesaian sengketa WTO adalah tidak sah. Demikian dikatakan juru bicara Uni Eropa Arancha Gonzales. Persoalan tarif industri memang masalah yang sangat sensitif dari sudut kepentingan industri dalam negeri AS terutama industri kecilnya. Juga kepentingan politik Bush dalam upaya pencalonan kembali dirinya di tahun depan. Industri-industri kecil di negara-negara bagian Michigan, Minnesota, dan Wisconsin adalah beberapa negara bagian di mana para buruh industri kecilnya marah dengan kebijakan Bush untuk menurunkan tarif impor baja. Mereka khawatir impor tersebut akan memperburuk perekonomian AS dan mengancam kehidupan mereka. Dan yang lebih membahayakan lagi bagi Bush adalah pemilih elektoral yang berada di wilayah tersebut, yang merupakan sepertiga dari suara yang akan memilih Bush. Akan tetapi pada akhirnya Amerika Serikat tunduk pada ancaman negara-negara UE dalam masalah tarif impor baja. Presiden Bush tanggal 4 Desember 2003 lalu telah mengambil keputusan untuk mencabut tarif impor baja yang tadinya ditujukan untuk melindungi industri dalam negerinya.

Keputusan Bush diambil setelah ia mempertimbangkan untuk menghindari terjadinya perang dagang. Uni Eropa telah mengancam akan menjatuhkan sangsi yang bisa berjumlah 2,2 milyar dollar terhadap produk AS yang masuk ke negaranya bila Bush tidak mencabut tarif yang diterapkan sejak Maret 2002 itu dan yang akan berakhir pada bulan Juni 2005 tersebut. WTO sendiri pada November lalu telah mengeluarkan keputusan bahwa kebijakan tarif impor baja AS adalah ilegal. UE membawa persoalan tarif baja ini ke WTO sejak tahun 2002 karena menganggap tarif yang diterapkan oleh Amerika Serikat menghambat perdagangan bebas. Tekanan dalam negeri terhadap Bush sendiri sangat besar. Para penasehat Bush pun sebetulnya turut berperan dalam pencabutan tarif itu. Mereka mendesak agar Bush mencabut kebijakannya yang hanya akan berlaku selama 3 tahun itu. Buruh industri baja adalah yang paling terancam dan mereka merasa dikhianati oleh Bush setelah mereka selama ini banyak menyumbang dana guna pencalonan kembali Bush untuk pemilihan umum 2004 mendatang. Tarif adalah salah satu upaya untuk melindungi harga dalam negeri agar tidak jatuh harganya dan dengan demikian akan tetap menyediakan lapangan pekerjaan bagi ratusan ribu buruh baja dan industri kecil AS. Dengan dicabutnya tarif, maka akan dipastikan puluhan ribu orang akan kehilangan pekerjaan akibat harga dalam negeri yang tidak bisa bersaing dengan produk impor. Satu-satunya yang diuntungkan ialah pabrik mobil AS. Mereka diuntungkan dengan adanya bahan baku murah dari luar AS sehingga harga jual mobil menjadi murah. (NH) Sumber : Associated Press, By Lara Jakes Jordan, Dec. 1, 2003 dalam Trade Observatory : http://www.tradeobservatory.org/news/index.cf m?ID=5016; The Guardian, 2 Desember 2003 2003 9:01 AM, Oleh SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer, http://www.guardian.co.uk/ The uslatest/story/0,1282,-3453705,00.html. Guardian, 2 Desember 2003 2003 9:01 AM, Oleh SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer, http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,12 82,-3453705,00.html; Bush ditches steel import 4


duties,BBC News UK Edition Last Updated: Thursday, 4 December, 2003, 23:52 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3291537. stm.; The Economist,http://www.economist.com/ agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2261621

DEKLARASI MENTERI FTAA TIDAK KOMPREHENSIF BAGI NEGARA-NEGARA BERKEMBANG Setelah melalui debat selama lima belas menit terhadap draf deklarasi menteri yang diajukan oleh Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) FTAA, akhirnya keluarlah deklarasi yang diharapkan oleh peserta yang hadir. Namun, deklarasi tersebut mengurangi cakupan FTAA (Free Trade Area of Americas) yang komprehensif untuk lebih fleksibel, di mana setiap negara bisa merundingkan agenda liberalisasi perdagangannya secara bilateral maupun plurilateral. Negosiasi masalah-masalah substantif akan ditunda sampai TNC mengadakan sidang pada minggu pertama Februari 2004 di Puebla, Meksiko. Menteri-menteri perdagangan dari 34 negara di benua Amerika yang tergabung dalam FTAA menyelesaikan pembicaraan mereka satu hari lebih cepat dari yang dijadwalkan (21 November 2003) dengan deklarasi yang jauh tidak lengkap dibandingkan dengan draft sebelumnya. Perkembangan FTAA itu sendiri sangat tidak mencerminkan kepentingan mayoritas negara-negara benua Amerika yang masih miskin. Kritik-kritik terhadap FTAA antara lain akan mengancam kesehatan publik, hak-hak lingkungan dan kaum buruh dengan memberikan kekuasaan kepada korporasi-korporasi besar yang kebanyakan datang dari negara-negara besar seperti AS dan Kanada dan akan menyingkirkan pelayananpelayanan publik yang esensial seperti perawatan kesehatan, pendidikan, dan air. Negara-negara berkembang yang tergabung dalam FTAA sudah banyak memberikan keuntungan kepada negara maju seperti AS. Meksiko kehilangan sekitar 200.000 kesempatan kerja dalam tiga tahun terakhir dengan ikut serta dalam

perdagangan bebas dengan Cina dan negara-negara Amerika Tengah. Negara Amerika Latin pun dihantui masalah serupa. Kosta Rika telah menolak privatisasi industri telekomunikasinya yang selama ini masih dijalankan oleh pemerintah negara itu. Di Guatemala pun ribuan orang turun ke jalan untuk menolak perdagangan bebas. (NH) Sumber : Americas: FTAA Goes 'Lite' But U.S. Still Trade Heavyweight, by Emad Mekay, Inter Press Service, November 21, 2003: http://www. corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=9173; U.S. Cobbling Together Free Trade Nations By TRACI CARL, The Associated Press,Friday, December 5, 2003; 2:15 PM : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn /arti cles/A38947-2003Dec5.html

DOKUMEN

STATEMENT Africa Trade Network 6th Annual Review and Strategy Meeting 2-5 December 2003, Accra, Ghana We, members of the Africa Trade Network, gathered at our 6th Annual Review and Strategy Meeting in Accra from 2-5 December, 2003 declare as follows. As members of the Africa Trade Network, we have, together with thousands of civil society organisations all over the world, opposed continued attempts by the major industrial countries of the North that dominate the world economic system to further open up the economies of African and other developing countries for the benefit of their trans-national corporations, and at the expense of the peoples of our countries and their economic needs and rights. We have demanded that the global institutions of decision making on trade, finance and economic policy be transformed in order to secure the autonomy of our countries to develop policies that promote the developmental needs and rights of our peoples. We have pursued our positions and demands in the context of the WTO, as well as in the context of bilateral and multilateral processes such as the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) under the Cotonou Agreement, as well as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). While we have made significant progress, our 5


work and positions have acquired a greater sense of urgency in the light of recent developments in the context of international trade regimes. In September, the Cancun Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation collapsed. The major powers refused to take action to redress the widely acknowledged inequities of the WTO. Instead, they persisted with their attempts to impose their own interests, through bullying and manipulation, and relying on the undemocratic and untransparent methods of the WTO. African and other developing countries, working with a greater degree of unity and co-ordination than at previous conferences, successfully resisted these attempts. The Africa Trade Network saluted the efforts of our governments in defending the interests of their people. We hoped that the collapse of the Cancun conference would lead to the abandonment of the undemocratic practices of the WTO which have marginalized our countries, and expected that our governments would build on the momentum to further promote the interests of their peoples. However, three months after Cancun, the undemocratic and untransparent processes of the WTO continue to be applied, while the major powers persist with their outrageous positions adopted before and during the ministerial. The momentum generated for concrete action in furtherance of the demands of developing countries is in danger of being dissipated. Similar trends have emerged in the context of bilateral and multilateral trade arrangements outside the WTO. Against all the evidence of their lack of preparedness, some regional groupings in Africa are proceeding with negotiations under the Cotonou Agreement to establish so-called economic partnership agreements with the European Union. Bilateral free-trade agreements are being pursued with the US, who is now contemplating an update of the inimical AGOA. At the national level, some African governments have agreed to introduce legislation on issues of international trade which contradicts their positions on the same issues in the context of the WTO. In the light of the above, the collective work of civil society in Africa as well as globally acquires even greater urgency. To this end, we state the following positions.

The WTO We re-iterate our position that agreements, processes and the institution of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are imbalanced against African and other developing countries. They serve principally to prise open markets for the benefit of transnational corporations at the expense of national economies; workers, farmers, women and other groups in the developing world, and the environment. The WTO system, rules and procedures are undemocratic, untransparent and nonaccountable and have operated to marginalize the majority of the people of Africa and the world's. At Cancun, the developed countries again ignored the specific proposals by developing countries to redress these imbalances and problems, and rather opted to perpetuate them in critical questions such as Agriculture, NonAgricultural Market Access (NAMA), Services, Singapore Issues, Special and Differential Treatment and Implementation. This attempt as contained in the revised Draft Ministerial Declaration, the so-called Derbez text, was rejected. Paradoxically, since Cancun, the rejected Debez text is being used in the consultations, explicitly in agriculture, and implicitly in other areas. The same untransparent and undemocratic green room methods and processes are being used in the consultations. We reaffirm the basic demand of civil society, as contained in the global civil society platform statement of "Shrink or Sink", that the entire WTO institution must be transformed or face total collapse. As part of our overall demands and long-standing positions in pursuit of this, we adopt the following positions in relation the current post-Cancun processes in the WTO: Singapore Issues We demand that all four of the Singapore Issues be dropped entirely from the WTO programme. Cancun has proved even more forcefully the position of civil society that rules on the socalled Singapore Issues - of investment, competition policy, government procurement, and trade facilitation - have no place in the WTO. The proposal by the European Union, who are the main promoters of the Singapore Issues, to withdraw some of them is further proof that even the proponents have never believed that adoption of these rules are necessary for an equitable global system of rules on trade. 6


African and other developing country governments, unwilling to adopt these issues since they first emerged at the Singapore Ministerial Conference (1996), have remained consistent in agreeing only for studies and clarification of these issues. In the light of the development in Cancun, however, further studies or clarification are no longer adequate expression of their fundamental misgivings in relation to these issues. We therefore call on these governments to demand that these Singapore Issues be dropped from the WTO programme and reject proposals such as the adoption of a plurilateral agreement put forward by the European Union as a ruse for introducing the Singapore Issues through the back door. Agriculture We reject the Derbez text as a basis for developing a framework for further discussions on agriculture as this will lead to an outcome in which developed countries continue to protect and support their producers and exporters at the expense of producers, food sovereignty and the development of agriculture in African and other developing countries. We demand that under the rules to be adopted in agriculture: (a) the developed countries should eliminate the massive protections and subsidies; (b) developing countries should be free to take measures to promote and protect food sovereignty and small-scale agriculture and enterprise.

We call for the abandonment of the non-linear formula for tariff reductions. Instead developing countries should be given the flexibility to determine their own rate for, and scope of, tariff reduction in line with their needs. The sectoral approach to tariff reduction which aims to reduce tariff to zero in selected sectors which are sensitive should not be applied to African and other developing countries. Tariff peaks and escalations as well as non-tariff barriers against access by developing country products must be eliminated. General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) There must be a moratorium on further services liberalisation in the GATS pending assessment of the impact of the liberalisation on the access to these services, as well as on the economic and developmental needs of African and other developing countries. African and other governments must exercise their legal right in the WTO not to make any offers in response to the requests made to them. They must reject the idea that not making offers means their unwillingness to negotiate: not making an offer is a legitimate act of negotiation. Requests by the EU, US, and others on sensitive and strategic services sectors must be withdrawn.

Cotton and other primary commodities In solidarity with the specific problems and situation of the West and Central African cotton producing countries, we support the proposals submitted by these countries for redress. We call for similar support in relation to other primary commodity issues in Africa. We urge African governments to continue their collective action on behalf of the cotton proposal and in the context of their common positions on other issues.

Special and Differential Treatment, and Implementation Issues The proposals by African and other developing countries to strengthen their right to special and differential treatment within WTO rules, as well as to resolve the problems of implementation with the existing agreements have been largely whittled down to best endeavour and largely ineffectual statements of intent by the developed countries. At the same time, these issues are on the verge of disappearing from the Doha work programme. We demand the re-instatement of these essential development issues to the forefront of the WTO negotiations. Further discussion must be in the terms of the comprehensive proposals put forward by African and other developing countries prior to the Seattle Ministerial.

Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) We reject the implicit use of the Derbez text by the Chairman of the General Council in his consultations, and demand an approach to the negotiations consistent with industrial developmental needs of our countries.

TRIPS In addition to a permanent solution in line with the Doha declaration on TRIPs and Public Health, we call for the reinstatement of the comprehensive proposals for the review of theTRIPs Agreement as put forward by African

We urge the strengthening of the developing country alliances forged for Cancun on agriculture; in particular between the G20 and the SP and SSM alliance and other groups.

7 Global Justice Up-date, No. 5, Tahun I, 1-15 Desember 2003

countries for the Seattle ministerial; in particular demands to prohibit patent on all forms of life, and the removal of provisions which constrain the technological needs of African and other developing countries. Fundamentally, we affirm our position that TRIPS does not belong to the WTO. Economic Partnership Agreements In essence, the so-called Economic Partnership Agreements are Free Trade Agreements to be entered into between African and other ACP regions and the European Union, requiring that African, Pacific and Caribbean countries undertake reciprocal trade liberalisation with the EU. This is incompatible with the developmental needs of ACP countries, and is indeed in violation of the recognised principles even of an imbalanced regime such as the WTO. Furthermore, through proposals to negotiate such issues as investment, competition, government procurement, and trade facilitation, the European Union seeks to introduce agreements to de-regulate the entry and operation of European investors and businesses in ACP economies which are more aggressive than anything that the European Union has been able to get in the WTO, and which ACP countries have resisted in the WTO. The process of negotiations outlined for these has been imbalanced against ACP countries. The European Union has sought to undermine the agreed timetable of phased negotiations which will enable a clarification of principles at ACP wide level, before these are applied in regional negotiations. Even as they are patently unprepared for the task, some African regions such as ECOWAS and CEMAC have launched negotiations for EPA with Europe, while they hope to rely on impact assessments sponsored by the EU to help them determine their negotiating positions. We reject the negotiations for Economic Partnership Agreements which will result in free trade agreements between African regions and European Union. In furtherance of this we make the following demands: The first phase of the EPA negotiations at the ACP-wide level must be completed as a precondition to further move to the second phase at the regional level. In this context, such central principles must be affirmed, including:

(a) no country be worse off as a result of the negotiations than at the beginning; (b) there must be no reciprocity in the commitments assumed by EU and ACP countries; (c) there must significant levels of preferences A rigorous set of benchmarks and principles must be established as a precondition for further engagement around a trade and development agreement appropriate to the needs of African (and other ACP) societies. The impact assessment as currently conceived, formulated, and sponsored by the EU is inadequate and biased towards the establishment of free trade agreements, and must be rejected. In their place, an independent assessment must be undertaken of the implications of the commitments expected of ACP countries under economic partnership agreements. Such an alternative study and assessment must also enable ACP countries to formulate comparative scenarios and alternative approaches to engagement with the EU consistent with their development needs. Regional integration initiatives of Africa must be pursued on their own integrity, independently of the EPA processes, and as a benchmark against which the acceptability of any EPA must be judged. Discussions and negotiations on EPA should be integrated into the democratic processes, both at the national and continental level, involving in particular national parliaments as well as the regional and continental representative institutions, in order that the people are able to exercise their right to monitor and input into the discussions and approval of any final outcome of the discussions and negotiations. Regional Integration The integration of African countries, continently and regionally, based on the developmental needs of the people and full popular participation remains a key condition for the autonomous development of these countries, and for their defense against the ravages of Africa's subordinate integration in the global order. We call on all African people to assert their own regional integration efforts over the drive for free-trade agreements between Africa and Europe or America, as well as the NEPAD.

8 Global Justice Up-date, No. 5, Tahun I, 1-15 Desember 2003

Demands to African governments In support of demands made above in relation to the WTO, EPA, and other bilateral trade arrangements, we call on African governments: •

•

to build upon their recognition of the role of African civil society that has emerged in the context of WTO work and especially in the Cancun processes, and to enhance the opportunities for interaction with civil society organisations on the issues of development, economic policy, and the global economic regimes. In this regard, we commit ourselves to providing our contributions in terms of research and analysis, awareness raising and education, lobbying and campaign work, in the pursuit of economic and social development that is sustainable and equitable; to remain consistent with their long-standing positions, and to reaffirm their stand in opposing a new round of WTO negotiations that will introduce new issues, but instead to roll back the power and authority of the WTO by implementing changes to the WTO Agreements as described above;

•

to resist the free trade pressures within the Cotonou Agreement, plan effective and coordinated negotiating strategies, and develop alternative trade arrangements that support national and regional priorities for development, in cooperation with civil society and;

•

to strengthen the relevant African institutions and ensure the solidarity of African governments, and alliances with the ACP, LDCs and other developing country governments, against arm-twisting by the major powers in their attempts to push their agenda, and to ensure coherence of the national and regional decision-making authorities on these matters.

Civil Society We urge African civil society organisations, in the spirit of our common commitment to better outcomes for Africa in the global order, to support this statement. We commit ourselves to work to strengthen the solidarity of the civil society movement in the South and globally in its struggle for an equitable global order. Members of the ATN commit themselves to engage with other civil society organisations on

the continent and outside, and with other institutions like parliaments, and carry out the range of activities outlined in our action plan, in order to increase our capacity to influence the processes towards an outcome consistent the above positions. Africa Trade Network Accra 5 December 2003 9th December 2003 To all Ambassadors of Missions to the WTO in Geneva Dear Ambassador, Given recent new accounts regarding consultations taking place on agriculture, we are writing to you to express our deep concerns regarding process and substance. Our first concern relates to the consultation process now underway. We are particularly disturbed that the consultations to restart the agriculture negotiations are being held amongst a very small group of only 30 delegations despite the fact that agriculture is THE most important issue for developing countries in this round of negotiations. Many delegations in Geneva have been marginalized by the process and have told civil society groups how angry and excluded they feel. Given the importance of agriculture to these countries, we believe that the consultation process must be inclusive and ensure that all delegations can actively participate in the consensus-building process. Only an inclusive process will guarantee that the concerns of all members are adequately taken into account. The exclusion of the majority makes a mockery of the claims that this institution is Member-driven and democratic. Our second concern relates to the substance of the consultations. Despite the fact that in the run up to Cancun various proposals were elaborated by different groups of members, only the “Derbez text” on agriculture, with its framework approach, is now under discussion as a basis for future negotiations. During the Ministerial Conference in Cancun, many developing countries rejected this text in their initial statements because it does not appropriately 9


reflect their concerns, and is mainly based on the EU-US framework proposal, presented to the Membership just weeks before Cancun. The framework approach, as opposed to negotiating ‘modalities’ as mandated by the Doha Development Agenda, implies that general formulae with very few, if any, numbers or details will be agreed upon. This lack of clarity is disturbing since developing countries will be urged to accept a document that will only show its real impact in the second round of “modalities” negotiations. Inserting numbers to this framework and carrying out simulation shows that the Derbez framework approach for agriculture will result in drastic tariff cuts for developing countries, further opening of their markets, whilst legitimizing continued export dumping from OECD countries into these markets. Developed countries would only face modest tariff reductions. Among its many problems, the Derbez text does not require the elimination of all forms of export support, but only the elimination of subsidies on products of interest to developing countries. This is less than what the Doha Mandate had specified. Furthermore, the text is also a big step backwards in terms of disciplining domestic support in the developed countries. Among other problems, it only provides for a review of the criteria of the Green Box, despite the fact that domestic support notified under this category is a factor in export dumping. The EU and US have simply shifted their spending from box to box, rather than undertaken meaningful reform. The Derbez text proposes a framework, which essentially reinforces the existing structural inequities of agricultural trade and fails to address the main problem of the sector – export dumping. Agreeing to this framework as the basis for further negotiations in agriculture will lock developing countries into a negotiating context that will make it impossible to ensure balanced results. Of particular concern to NGOs, this will translate at the local level to a further deterioration in the already desperate plight of peasant farmers in developing countries. They cannot sustain their livelihoods in the face of such distorted competition. Food security and rural development - objectives the Doha mandate promised to address - would again, as in the Uruguay Round, be ignored.

We therefore call on you, as on all the members of the WTO, to recognize the legitimate right of developing countries to protect themselves from export dumping through tariffs, quantitative restrictions, safeguards and other measures, and therefore: • •

•

•

To drop the Derbez Text and with it the framework approach as the basis for Agricultural negotiations; To start negotiating modalities using the various texts, including those put forward by developing countries before Cancun, as the basis of negotiations; To ensure that the modalities negotiated end all forms of export dumping, including strict disciplines on domestic support which contribute to dumping; To ensure that all developing countries for which agriculture is the major interest in these negotiations are involved in this consultation process. Their views must be adequately reflected in whatever negotiating text is drafted in the coming weeks and months.

We call on you as on all WTO members to ensure that negotiations proceed in this direction. The developed country members must stop pressing developing countries to further open their markets. This demand is outrageous, especially since developed countries themselves have not stopped export dumping. Developing countries should not in any way give in to the present unjust demands of the developed countries; they must strengthen their own demands and insist that the new Agreement on Agriculture provide them with instruments to take effective measures to protect their farmers from export dumping. The employment and livelihood of millions of people in the developing world are at stake. We welcome any opportunity to clarify these views further and would appreciate a response to our letter. Sincerely Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) Third World Network (TWN) OXFAM International Public Services International (PSI) International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) International Gender and Trade Network (IGTN), Asia Region & Secretariat 10


SIDANG GC 15 DESEMBER TIDAK MENGHASILKAN BANYAK KEMAJUAN SETELAH CANCUN

Recommend Documents