[Ngo-sanrm] At recent WTO meeting in Bali, resistance against predatory trade policies that quash small farmers collapsed.

Wed Dec 18 23:58:51 ICT 2013

[image: At the recent World Trade Organization meeting in Bali, developing
world resistance against predatory trade policies that quash small farmers
collapsed. (photo: David Williams/Flickr)]

*At the recent World Trade Organization meeting in Bali, developing world
resistance against predatory trade policies that quash small farmers
collapsed. (photo: David Williams/Flickr)*
Spineless in Bali: Fooled Again by the WTO

By Walden Bello, Foreign Policy in Focus <http://splashurl.com/lyqwwx4>

17 December 13

*Developed countries are still using the WTO to squeeze small farmers in
the developing world-and developing world governments are going along with
the charade.*

During the national debate on whether the Philippines should join the World
Trade Organization in 1994-95, proponents promised that joining the
organization would help create some 500,000 new agriculture jobs a year.
The Philippines, they said, would become a powerhouse exporter of
high-value-added crops like broccoli, snow peas, and cut flowers.

In fact, over the next decade, the country was turned from a net
agricultural exporter into a net agricultural importer, and employment in
agriculture dropped drastically in absolute numbers, from 11.2 million in
1994 to 10.8 million in 2001. In one commodity after another, Filipino
producers were driven out of business by cheap subsidized imports of grain,
poultry, vegetables, and livestock.

The situation was pretty much the same for many developing countries after
1995, as they were turned from dynamic net agricultural exporters to
troubled net agricultural importers. Becoming a party to the Agreement on
Agriculture in order to join the WTO, in short, was a bad, bad move.

*Carrot and Stick *

I was reminded of the historic WTO debate by the negotiations over the
so-called "Bali Package" at the recent World Trade Organization Ministerial
meeting in Bali, Indonesia, which took place December 3-7.

The developed countries, led by the United States and the European Union,
came to Bali with two proposals. The carrot was a "trade facilitation"
initiative that would allegedly simplify customs procedures and thus
increase global trade, they said, by a "trillion dollars." The stick was a
demand that developing countries get rid of significant support programs
for farmers and consumers, like food stockpiling, in the next four years,
or else be charged in a WTO court for exceeding their allowable subsidy
levels of 10 percent of gross domestic product. This was the so-called
"peace clause extension proposal."

Many developing countries were upset by the peace clause proposal and
skeptical about the benefits for them of the trade facilitation deal. India
was especially threatened since it had just passed an expanded program of
food stockpiling to help ensure the food security of poor farmers and
consumers. But others joined India's protest because the motion placed the
burden of rectifying imbalances in the global food trade on developing
countries while avoiding any commitment by developed countries to cut their
more than $200 billion worth of yearly subsidies to their own agricultural
sectors. This massive subsidization has led to systematic dumping, or
selling goods below cost, in developing country markets that is driving
farmers to bankruptcy.

*An Unbalanced Deal *

After nearly 20 years of pulling off one shenanigan after another at the
WTO, the developed country governments were at it again. Thus, I felt
compelled to have a lengthy telephone exchange with the Philippines' lead
negotiator in Bali, Secretary of Trade and Industry Gregory Domingo.
Secretary Domingo agreed that both proposals were unbalanced in favor of
the developed countries. Those countries, he informed me, were not even
willing to entertain cuts in their export subsidies - a small portion of
their massive subsidy programs - in return for cuts in the already
relatively minute subsidies of developing countries.

As for the proposed trade facilitation deal, Domingo admitted that it
favored mainly big corporate players, not the small and medium enterprises
of developing countries that were engaged in global agricultural commerce.
In other words, the Philippine negotiating team was going to Bali with eyes
wide open.

The same debate, between food-security advocates and government negotiators
pressured by the United States and European Union, took place in other
delegations, with Indian, Latin American, and African civil society groups
warning their governments not to capitulate.

*The President's Orders *

Gravely worried about the pressure that would be brought against the
Philippines if it chose to support India's stand against an agricultural
trade deal, I texted the Philippine President, Benigno Aquino. "Let me just
restate my strong opposition to the Philippines' signing on the unbalanced
Bali package," I said. "I really hope we will not sacrifice the strategic
interests of the Philippines and other developing countries just to achieve
a Bali deal."

I was pleasantly surprised when the president replied: "Prof, they are
still negotiating and they have been instructed along the lines you have
stated." That gave me hope.

Over the next 24 hours, momentous developments took place. India backed
down from its opposition when the developed countries agreed to drop their
push to invoke sanctions on developing countries maintaining significant
food support programs after an extension of four years. However, the burden
of living up to the Agreement on Agriculture was still placed on developing
countries. Moreover, only their existing food support programs would be
covered by the deal, meaning new programs to support their farmers or
consumers would open them up to lawsuits in the WTO court.

Most importantly, the developed countries, led again by the United States
and European Union, refused to entertain any notion of reducing their
massive subsidies, which are the main factor wreaking havoc in global
agricultural trade.

As the negotiations drew to a close in the early morning of December 7, I
got the following message from Secretary Domingo: "Congressman Bello, the
Bali Package is a balanced package, and while parts of it, like some parts
in the Trade Facilitation deal, will benefit others more, we benefit also
big time in the more transparent processes that we will have, particularly
in customs. The peace clause is also of significant benefit to the
Philippines as revised without a fixed term limit."

*Déjà vu All Over Again *

This was déjà vu all over again, to borrow Yogi Berra's immortal phrase. We
agreed to a deal on agriculture without the promise of any subsidy cuts on
the part of the rich agricultural superpowers, who simply promised that the
parties would work towards a "permanent peace clause," whatever that is.

And as far as the gains from trade facilitation were concerned, the
Philippine legislature was not provided with any figures on how we would
gain "big time" from the deal. Again, the likely source of our trade
secretary's optimistic statement was an act of faith in the estimates of
the WTO secretariat and neoliberal think tanks like the Washington-based
Peterson Institute that there would be a global gain of $1 trillion in
trade. Completely abandoned was his concern that it would be mainly big
corporations, and not small and medium enterprises in the developing world,
that would reap the greatest benefits from the deal.

As in 1995, Philippine negotiators allowed themselves to succumb to the
pressures of developed country negotiators whose marching orders from their
capitals are to make no substantive concessions. This hardline attitude has
forced the developing countries to form an effective defensive bloc since
the Seattle Ministerial of the WTO in 1999. In Bali, that bloc collapsed
under the pressure exerted by developed countries as well as from Brazil,
one of whose representatives fills the post of director general, and host
country Indonesia, which wanted a deal at any cost for prestige reasons.

As in the Philippines, food-security advocates in other countries felt
betrayed by their governments' capitulation. "The Ministerial Decision
seriously compromise[s] India's food security and farmers' livelihoods,"
said the All India Kisan Sabha farmers' coalition in a statement. "The
agreement will threaten expansion of present programs of food security and
price support to farmers as well as future programs with such objectives.
The USA, EU and other developed countries have brokered a deal with the
Commerce Minister Anand Sharma to protect the interests of the rich nations
and their agribusinesses. "

For its part, the Africa Trade Network saw the trade facilitation deal as
"the very opposite of what African countries need to address the
fundamental and peculiar challenges that they face in moving goods and
services across national borders. The text imposes obligations on all
countries to adopt customs procedures which are standard in the advanced
industrial countries, and which most of the big emerging economies have
already voluntarily adopted, and which are commensurate with the stage of
economic development. African countries on the other hand, have to
undertake massive legislative, policy and infrastructural changes to live
up to these standards."

*Fooled Again *

There is now a consensus that the Philippines - and most other developing
countries - lost out by joining the WTO nearly 20 years ago. Our
agriculture and industry are now on their last legs after becoming part of
a global organization whose main "principle" is trade liberalization for
developing countries and continued protectionism for the developed
countries. I thought we had learned from the debacle of 1995. Our
negotiators have not, being steeped in the art of swallowing the rosy
calculations of the WTO spinmasters and caving in at the slightest pressure
from the powerful.

As in 1995, developing countries will live to regret joining the frightened
herd and signing the Bali deal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://ngocentre.org.vn/pipermail/ngo-sanrm/attachments/20131218/9b76b7ac/attachment-0023.html 