ADVERTISEMENTS:
This article provides information about the dominance of developed north in WTO:
The WTO agreements are largely devised on the standards thought out and set by the developed nations of the North. Many in the South believe that it was devised in such a way that the interest of the big industries and companies, who do not want to lose their monopoly over technology or products.
Image Courtesy : gdb.rferl.org/0AC78122-4B71-4E42-A807-EE7462165AEF_mw1024_n_s.jpg
ADVERTISEMENTS:
When one considers the working of WTO itself, it has been found that the negotiations are invariably between the richer groups of countries the decisions that they are reach are then imposed on the poorer nations without their participation. The Protest against Seattle WTO meeting was precisely the complaint that Third World had against the North.
So what happened in the real Battle for Seattle? Firstly, the poor countries were sidelined from the start in the desperation of the Americans to get a deal. The working groups which had convened to reach consensus between interested countries in different areas were regarded as a sham. The chairs were reporting consensus when none existed. Secondly, the ‘green room discussions’, the next level of debate, this time mostly between the rich countries, were excluding the poor. At least one African delegate was physically barred from attending.
The third issue concerned the style and manner of the US chief negotiator Charlene Barshefsky who was judged personally offensive, patronising and insulting. She was booed in one plenary meeting. And in addition to this the poor countries were appalled by the speed at which the negotiations were being rushed through, and by the lack of debate.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Not only had many of the world’s poorest countries neither the capacity nor the means to implement even the previous round of talks which finished five years ago, let alone take aboard a whole new round of negotiations, but many had barely the means to have a permanent representative in Geneva where the rolling talks are held.
The developing world was also concerned that genuine concerns about the effects of another round of liberalisation on trade on the environment, jobs, cultural and social issues were being seen to be constantly suborned to pure economic interests. Time after time, agreements that had taken years to make in other international forums were dismissed or discarded. The WTO does not recognise the ‘precautionary principle’, and overrules all other international agreements. This, together with the perceived agenda setting of the talks by big business, is what mostly concerned the environmentalists and labour groups protesting at Seattle.
‘The democratic system is not working,’ said Martin Khorof developing world Network. ‘It’s bust. It needs more than WTO reform.’ While the media concentrated on Seattle’s riots, the tear gas and the looting, the demands on the streets of Seattle were not for an end to world trade but for a fairer and more democratic system.
‘They are worried about a few windows being smashed’, said one Filipino leader. ‘They should come and see the violence being done to our communities in the name of liberalisation of trade.’ There are many aspects of trade that tilt against the poorer south; we did mention for instance how some of the trade relations are essentially suited to the monopolistic tendencies of the big corporations.
One particular area which has come under severe criticism from the South is introduction of TRIPs agreement in the Uruguay Round, which gives a handle to WTO and the big companies which lobby to twist the arms of poorer nations in the name of patents.
TRIPs ignores the profound differences in economic and technological capabilities between the North and the South, and is an instrument of ‘technological protectionism’ aimed at consolidating an international division of labour where the North generates the innovations and the South will be the market for the resulting products and services. It is a move by US corporate interests to establish global rules to counter their declining competitive market edge in world markets.