|
|
Mr. Chairman,
The Pakistan delegation would like to convey our sincere appreciation to the
Secretary-General for the excellent report on “International Trade &
Development” in document A/57/376 which successfully captures the current state
of play in the Doha International trade negotiations. We also wish to thank the
Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD),
Mr. Rubens Ricupero, for the Reports of the Trade and Development Board.
2. We associate ourselves with the statement made by Venezuela on behalf of the
Group of 77 and China.
Mr. Chairman,
3. Trade is a powerful instrument of development. But, trade – even if it is
free and fair – is also a competitive game. The developing countries are, by
definition, not equal players. To be able to benefit from external trade, these
weaker players must be provided a “handicap” viz-a-viz the developed countries.
4. Instead, the international trading system handicaps the handicapped. It
discriminates against developing countries in several ways. At the time of the
creation of the Bretton Woods Institutions, the proposal of Lord Keynes for a
commodity price stabilization mechanism, was not accepted. Over the last 55
years, commodity prices have registered a secular and significant decline in
absolute terms and relative to industrial goods. This is the most important
reason for the decline in the terms of trade and export earnings of the majority
of developing countries. Also, the two sectors in which the developing countries
were most competitive – agriculture and textiles – were excluded for 50 years
from the fair trade discipline of GATT. And, even as tariffs on industrial goods
were slashed, exports from developing countries faced, and continue to face,
discriminatory tariff peaks and tariff escalations, shutting them out of the
largest markets, preventing processing and indiscrimination and perpetuating
their role as raw material and commodity producers.
5. This legacy of inequity was further exacerbated by the Uruguay Round
agreements:
- The agriculture agreement confirmed inequality, allowing the developed
countries to maintain their price support & subsidies and high tariffs, while
restraining developing countries to 10% de minimis levels of support;
- The removal of the MFA quota restraints on the textiles exports of developing
countries was prolonged for 10 more years and escape mechanisms built into the
agreement to defer real liberalization to the end of the phase out period;
- The TRIPS and TRIMS agreements incorporated obligations for which most
developing countries were totally unprepared and in effect kicked away the
ladders by which today’s advanced countries attained their present levels of
development;
- In the newly-introduced sector of trade in services, liberalization was agreed
mainly in areas of interest to the developed countries, such as financial
services, rather than in the movement of “natural persons” i.e. people seeking
jobs at lower wages.
6. The manner in which the Uruguay Round agreements have been implemented – or
rather not implemented – has further accentuated the asymmetric nature of the
benefits of trade liberalization for the developed and the developing countries.
Textiles quotas have not yet been lifted. The $300 billion in trade earnings
that was supposed to accrue to the exporting countries remains a chimera. When
quotas fully go in 2005 we fear that “other means” will be found by the
restraining countries to halt these exports of the developing world. The S&D
provisions of WTO agreements have remained expressions of ‘good intent’ only.
The implementation of the new agreements – TRIPS & TRIMS – has proved difficult
for developing countries. And, the Dispite Settlement System, the ‘jewel in the
crown‘ of the WTO, even if can offer expensive justice to the developing
countries, cannot provide compensation for the damage which their trade suffers
due to the frequently high-handed and illegal means used by the developed
‘partners’ to arrest or disrupt their exports.
7. At the Doha Ministerial, despite the commitment to place the needs and
interests of the developing countries “at the heart of the Work Programme”, the
provisions of the Declaration mostly reflected the objectives of the major
trading partners – industrial tariffs, investment, competition policy,
environment, trade facilitation. Priority areas for developing countries:
implementation, agriculture, tariff peaks and escalation, anti-dumping, and S&D,
were not satisfactorily addressed, much less resolved. The references, at the
conclusion of the Conference to the “Doha Development Agenda” were therefore
somewhat ironical.
8. Pakistan is glad that the new Director-General of the WTO, Dr. Supachai, has
identified the development-related goals in the Doha work – programme in fairly
specific terms. The ‘development’ goals include the following:
One, to address and resolve the 50 remaining proposals relating to
implementation of WTO agreements were left outstanding despite the persistent
efforts of many WTO members before Doha and at Doha. Unfortunately, there is no
evidence of a renewed commitment to address and resolving these issues even now.
Two, critical proposals, for growth of textiles quotas, remain unresolved
despite the expiry of the 1st July deadline set out in the Doha Declaration;
Three, the removal of the inequity in agriculture including approval of the
Development Box as proposed by the developing countries;
Four, operationalization of the S&D provisions in existing agreements, and
incorporation of such provisions in new agreements, including adoption of a
Framework Agreement for S&D. This will be a litmus test for the professed
commitments to development;
Five, the earliest elimination of tariff peaks and tariff escalations which
discriminate against the developing countries;
Six, action to arrest and better regulate the proliferation of anti-dumping
actions especially against the low-income and least developed countries;
Seven, review and, if necessary, revision of the TRIPS & TRIMS Agreements, to
induct the developmental dimension in their provisions;
Eight, elaboration of mutually supportive synergies between trade and debt &
finance and trade & transfer of technology, in the two new Working Groups.
Mr. Chairman,
9. Until satisfactory progress is made in fulfilling this “Doha Development
Agenda”, the developing countries should not be expected to accept further and
new obligations in areas of interest to the industrial countries – such as
investment, competition policy, trade facilitation and government procurement.
10. Some powerful trading partners say that weaker players must make the
concessions in the WTO negotiations since the former have the choice to conclude
bilateral and regional free-trade agreements outside the WTO with consenting
partners on their own terms. This is insufficient reason to create or perpetuate
inequality and discrimination against the developing countries in the
international trading system. For any system of relationship to survive, it must
be based not only on power but also principle. Ultimately, it is the major
players themselves who need a rules based international trading system since, it
its absence, they are more likely than others to revive their past
‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ policies.
11. A commitment to the MTC also implies that the pursuit of regional and
bilateral trade agreements will not constitute the preferred approach of WTO
member States. You cannot “run with the hares and hunt with the hounds”. Several
developing countries, with sizeable populations, especially in South Asia, are
being progressively excluded from the regional free trade access being
established in various parts of the world. This will impact negatively on both
their economic growth and social standards, besides eroding the MTS under the
WTO.
Mr. Chairman,
12. The Doha negotiations must also reverse the threat from the “new
protectionism” – the use of environment & social conditionalities including
labour standards – to restrain the exports of development countries. Such
protectionism, which is being practiced informally, and at times officially, is
contrary to WTO agreements and obligations. It must be eliminated. Also, all
attempts to legitimize such conditionalities by inserting them into WTO
Agreements and decisions should be vigorously opposed.
13. Progress in the Doha work programme, so far, is unimpressive. If significant
advances are not registered by next year’s Ministerial Conference in Mexico,
specially on the priority developmental issues, there is a danger that this
mid-term Conference would end-up sending a somber message of impasse. This could
further accelerate the negative trends already apparent in the world economy. It
could transform the current economic slow down into a real recession. It is the
interest of all countries – rich and poor – to avoid this. The responsibility
for reversing the recent trends falls most heavily and rightly on the major
industrialized countries. They must bridge the gap between rhetoric and reality.
They must not only revive economic growth, they must also reverse their recent
protectionist actions – such as higher agricultural support and tariffs in major
industrial sectors – and send the clear signal that they are prepared to
participate in the cost as well as the benefits of the global trade
liberalization which they so vocally advocate but so frequently violate.
.I thank you, Mr. Chairman.