Open brief internationale organisaties: Gevaarlijke veranderingen in onderhandelingsregels GATS

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