Open brief internationale organisaties: Gevaarlijke veranderingen in onderhandelingsregels GATS

Geschreven door rob bleijerveld dinsdag, 22 juli 2008 02:22

TO: Permanent Representatives to the WTO in Geneva

Copy to: Pascal Lamy, WTO Director General

Amb. De Mateo, Chair of the Special Sessions of the Council for Trade in Services

DANGEROUS CHANGES IN GATS’ NEGOTIATING RULES

As civil society organizations concerned about trade justice issues around the world, we are appalled by provisions in the draft negotiating text issued May 27^th by the Chair of the WTO Council for Trade in Services.

In particular, we find the following bracketed text in paragraph 4 of the Annex to be particularly problematic:

Negotiations must be driven by the same level of ambition and political will as reflected

in the agriculture and NAMA modalities. While respecting the existing structure and principles of the GATS, Members shall respond to bilateral and plurilateral requests by offering commitments that substantially reflect current levels of market access and national treatment and provide new market access and national treatment in cases where significant trade impediments exist.

If adopted, this text would establish new mandatory procedures for service negotiations that flatly contradict many of the modalities already agreed upon for the GATS negotiations, namely:

• the Guidelines and Procedures for the Negotiations on Trade in Services [March 28, 2001] that stipulate --- “The starting point for the negotiation of specific commitments shall be the current schedules, without prejudice to the content of requests.” (point 10) and --- “Special attention shall be given to sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries”;

• the Modalities for the Special treatment of the Least Developed Country Members in the Negotiations on Trade in Services [September 3, 2003];

• the explicitly non-mandatory guidelines adopted in Annex C of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in 2005;

• the flexibilities for services negotiations as outlined in Article XIX of the GATS, allowing countries to engage in progressive liberalization, and GATS Article XIX.2 which permits developing countries to open fewer sectors or liberalize fewer transactions, and to ensure that opening market access to certain sectors is compatible with their development priorities.

In effect, this bracketed text reflects a unilateral demand by the industrialized powers to make mandatory (“Negotiations must be driven”, “Members shall respond”) and binding commitments for opening the service sectors of their economies to foreign-based transnational corporations.

It is well known that the US and the EU, supported by Japan, Canada, Australia and other industrialized countries, have been insisting that developing countries make major concessions in terms of market access in services in exchange for movement in agriculture and NAMA before the Doha Round can be concluded. Key sectors of developing country economies have been targeted for market access and national treatment including --- financial services, energy services, telecom services, education services, environment services and tourism services.

Another problem is that the aforementioned bracketed text appears to be set up for bargaining against another bracketed text in the same paragraph 4:

“Members reiterate that the next offers shall provide market access in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to developing countries, such as Modes 1 and 4, as indicated in bilateral and plurilateral requests, in accordance with Article IV of the GATS.”

The problem here is that this bracket text reiterates a long agreed principle in GATS art. IV.1. (c). It, therefore, should not be put in brackets (even if it more explicitly refers to modes 1 and 4) and should not be used for bargaining against a part of text that flatly contradicts already agreed upon negotiation principles.

We fear that in a push to rapidly finalize the Doha round negotiations in 2008, GATS negotiators will be forced to offer commitments that substantially reflect current levels of market access and much more. In some cases, developing countries will be suddenly compelled to make offers in inequitable exchanges for concessions made in areas of agriculture and NAMA. This would also mean that GATS negotiations would be extremely rushed in comparison with the negotiations on agriculture and NAMA, while the demands from the rich countries might have very complex, costly and negative consequences in many developing countries.

Moreover, many other parts of the GATS negotiations are still matters of concern, such as the negotiations on domestic regulation which will substantially erode policy space even if the language seems to have been softened.

We, therefore, urge not only developing countries but all member states of the WTO Council on Trade in Services, to reject this draft text, especially paragraph 4, and, instead, insist that the GATS modalities of non-mandatory guidelines and flexibility for developing countries, be fully respected

in these negotiations. This means that the GATS negotiations should not be rushed, and not be used as a bargaining chip or as compensation for the concessions made by developed countries in either the agriculture or NAMA negotiations.

Co-signed by:

Africa-Europe Faith & Justice Network, Belgium

Alianza Social Continental

Alliance for Democracy, USA

Alliance for Progressive Labor [APL], Philippines

Amigos de la Tierra América Latina y el Caribe

ARENA, New Zealand

Asia Pacific Mission for Migrants, Hong Kong

Association internationale de techniciens, experts et chercheurs [AITEC], France

ATTAC Argentina

ATTAC Austria

ATTAC France

ATTAC Germany

ATTAC Poland

ATTAC Spain

Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, Australia

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Australia

Beati I Costruttori di pace, Italy

Bia’lii, Asesoria e Investigaciớn, Mexico

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, India

Brazilian Network for the Integration of Peoples [REBRIP], Brazil

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canada

Center of Concern, USA

Citizens Against Privatization, New Zealand

Coalition of the Flemish North-South Movement-11.11.11, Belgium

Consumers Association of Penang, Malaysia

Corporate Europe Observatory, Belgium

Ecologistas en Acciớn, Spain

Economic Justice and Development Organization, Pakistan

Edmund Rice Centre for Justice and Community Education, Australia

Education International --- based in Belgium

Enginyeria sense Fronteres-Catalunya, Spain

Entrepobles, Spain

Federaciớn de Comités de Solidaridad con Africa Negra, Spain

Food and Water Watch, USA

Foundation for Gaia, UK

Foundation for Grassroots Initiatives in Africa, Ghana

Friends of the Earth Europe

Friends of the Earth International --- based in the Netherlands

Friends of the Earth Malaysia, Malaysia

Global Peace and Justice Auckland, New Zealand

Humanitarian Group for Social Development, Lebanon

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, USA

Institute for Global Justice, Indonesia

International Gender Trade Network --- based in Switzerland

International Grail Justice in Trade Network, Australia

KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, Canada

La Alianza Social Continental Capitulo, Peru

Marcha Mundial de las Mujres, Mexico

Medicus Mundi-Catalunya, Spain

Millennium Solidarity, Switzerland

Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice & Peace Center, Australia

Mujeres por el Diálogo, Mexico

Oakland Institute, USA

Oxfam International

Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum, Pakistan

Pax Christi, Australia

Peace for All International, Canada/Uganda

Platforma por Defensa de los Servicos Publicos de Madrid, Spain

Polaris Institute, Canada

Proyecto cultura y solidaridad, Spain

Public Service International --- based in France

Quality Public Education coalition, New Zealand

Red Colombiana de Acciớn Frente al Libre Comercio, Colombia

Red Nacional Género y Economia, Spain

Red de Semillas “Resembrando e Intercambiando”, Spain

Red Sinti Techan,El Salvador

REDES – Amigos de la tierra, Uruguay

SETEM, Catalunya, Spain

Siembra, AC, Mexico

SOMO [Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations], Netherlands

South Africa Municipal Workers’ Union, South Africa

Supolitik, Turkey

Transnational Institute, Netherlands

UNI Global Union --- based in Switzerland

Veterinaris sense Fronteres-Catalunya, Spain

War on Want, UK

World Development Movement, UK

Xarxa de Observatori del Deute en Globalitzaciớ, Spain