Brussels/Geneva, 08/04/2003 (Agence Europe) - From failed meeting to failed meeting, the 145 countries of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) now have their eyes firmly set on Cancun where they will meet, in five months, for a Summit Conference condemned to becoming the key test of negotiations over the Doha development agenda. The agenda of this ministerial meeting, which will clarify the chances of completing the Round on the planned date of 1 January 2005, is dangerously loosing steam due to the consecutive timetable delays over the last year: implementation of the existing undertakings by the developing countries, simplification of their access to vital medicines, methods for special and differentiated treatment that will be given to them, figured targets and hopes for the future reform of agricultural trade (see, among others, EUROPE of 19 March, p. 12). This comes after the deadline, last 31 March, set for the filing of offers for the opening of markets for services and that the Europeans, following around one hundred other members, where unable to respect. The EU 15 having been unable to give their assent to the proposal from the European Commission (see EUROPE of 6 February, p. 8). This delay is not dramatic, assures Brussels, with a confidence that is not overshadowed by the weight of the talks over a possibility of developing new rules for trade in services, including over methods concerning safeguards, subsidies, national regulations and public procurement.
We would not describe things as going badly. If there is a negotiation that presently works, it is that for services, assures Brussels, recalling that the closing of this chapter should ether way form part of the global package that emerges from the Round. The proof that this works, certainly better than elsewhere (but which is also the other side of the coin), is that some among the powerful within the Cairns group, are already beginning to make connections with agriculture, stating, in substance: until now we have played a game over services, but if you do not play the game on the agricultural chapter, the one that interests me, we stop. We will not allow the Europeans to offer assurances to u, if they do not open their agricultural markets or lower their customs tariffs on textiles, indicates a Brazilian source in Geneva.
The same for agriculture, where it is mainly on the defensive, and the negotiations over services are strategic for the Europeans. Conscious of its assets, the Union is particularly on the offensive in this area, where is it, today, the world's leader - and the United States, its main competitor, both referring to different exchange rates and years to claim the number one slot. These imports and exports already represent 25% of the sectors trade at world level and, in bilateral negotiations over market access, which should begin very soon (in the framework of the process following the filing of initial demands and offers), the Europeans also think of their untapped potential. It is a sector that already employs an enormous share of our economies, 60 to 70%, but which only represents 25% of global Community exports. This shows that the situation and the importance of the sector in our economies are not, as yet, reflected in the structure of our exports, explains a European official, while insisting on the enormous potential, not only for our companies that export, but also for safeguarding jobs. From where stems, no doubt, the European emphasis on the 'access to markets' aspect of the GATS negotiations and the perceptible lack of conviction in Geneva over that of 'rules' (contrary to their global approach in the Round). For the Europeans, the important point from now until Cancun is that the greatest number of countries possible table offers, significant offers in number and quality. The United States, which, since last Monday, offered better access for foreign suppliers in the sectors of insurance, telecommunications, banking and energy (distribution and storage, trials, analysis and parcel delivery couriers, are on the same wave length as to the disciplines, as are most of the other OECD members. They concern only a small group of countries, in particular those of the ASEAN lead by Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, who push, indicates a source close to the talks. The European side assures, where the disciplines are clearly not a priority in the field of services, we will not minimise (their) importance in these negotiations. The mandate exists (to see whether or not it is opportune to foresee rules for safeguards, subsidies, the objectivity of domestic regulations and public procurement, as well as what rules: Ed.), but it is necessary to know, before drafting rules, what are the problems to be tackled, (and) it is far more complicated than for goods. The GATS is a relatively recent agreement, stemming for the Uruguay Round in 1995, and a certain amount of hesitation exists among the WTO members over the possibility of moving in such a direction before knowing how this agreement works and before even having identified the problems to be resolved, the case of figures to be considered, underlines Brussels, where openness presently exists, but not necessarily conviction.
Launched well before Doha, in 1999 in the framework of the programme 'incorporated' to the DDA, the negotiations over discipline services are stagnant. In Geneva, the Chilean Ambassador Alexandro Jara, who is leading these works, notes that the members remain in disagreement over crucial questions and that he has not yet managed to perceive their determination to resolve such fundamental differences. For the Europeans, one of the most sensitive points - and this is already the case at the intra-Community level - concerns internal regulations and the safeguards to be foreseen against the use of hidden or unnecessary trade barriers (through procedures and criteria for licensing, qualifications, standards and norms etc.). An exercise where the 145 are in disagreement, including the EU and the United States. However, insists Geneva, there is not question of affecting the right of any country to protect its own services, to set itself targets and to determine the means to achieve them. The WTO does not touch these rights; it is not its role. It is a sovereign decision of governments, states Brussels, adding that when a target is set, the government must choose the method to achieve it that has the least impact on trade, for the same level of satisfaction and security. This is one of the areas where NGOs continue to show vigilance despite the means deployed by the Commission to reassure them (see A Look Behind the News of 29 March). NGOs pounce on it, while it does not cast doubt over the right to regulate, it is the government of the member country that decides and its obligations towards the WTO are limited to establishing the purpose, while taking into account the agreement that has been signed.
In another dark spot in the negotiations, the safeguards section, for the time being nonexistent in this sector, the 145 are being asked to determine whether they need, in principal, such an instrument (ability to impose temporary import restrictions, derogating usual obligations, possibly through compensation), and in what shape. On both issues, they are in disagreement. The case is complex as, other than the political dimension, it is not goods that pass customs, which are targeted, but services, sometimes even physical persons, the methods of provision also being cross-border, consumption abroad, through commercial presence or through the temporary displacement of qualified personnel, explains an expert. Even over this latter method, the so-called IV method, the Europeans do not, as yet, perceive an interest in safeguards as the GATS already provides flexibility, the undertakings for opening allowing for the inclusion of conditions. This possibility for limitation also explains in part the fact that the developing countries providing IV method services are not keen towards the idea of foreseeing a possible additional restriction to access to attractive markets, notably for their most successful providers (IT, translation, accounting, medicine, etc.). The developing world has much qualified personnel, in particular India, Malaysia, Egypt, Latin America and especially Brazil, underlines a delegate from one of these countries.
It is mainly over this point (IV method) that the offer the European Commission is proposing to make to EU trade partners proves hard to digest for the EU 15, through fear of eating into their immigration policies. Among the NGOs, ATTAC is apprehensive over the creation of an international labour market, with fixed durations, which would enable independent workers to move from country to country, three months at a time, without there being a means to verify their methods of remuneration. A European official refers to the conditions that may be set to prevent abuses, notably specifying that it is of graduates, with five years experience, that we are talking, not unqualified personnel, such as construction workers. Nevertheless, the talks with the Council continue. They are moving forward. We are nearly there, feels the Commission, where the aim remains gaining the go-ahead from minister for foreign affairs (Council on 14 April).
As for the anti-GATS fringe launched by NGOs, whose fears and criticisms are especially tenacious over public services, transparency, this campaign starts from a lack of understanding and, honestly, from a desire to understand, feels a European official. For most of the members, what is being offered in the negotiations, are mainly things that they already do internally. This is the case for the EU, where liberalisation is far more advanced than what is being discussed within the WTO, and those who criticise it forget that the LDC are also interested in this negotiation. This is a speech from the sixties, while compared to previous rounds, the EU received requests of which more than half came from these countries and, more interestingly, there are requests from LDC to LDC, for example, Brazil to China, India to others. A moratorium on GATS negotiations (called for by ATTAC and the Human Rights League: Ed.)! Honestly, they are trying to block the negotiations, feels an expert. An attitude that is also seen elsewhere, notably in the United States and that other sources, non-European, explain as due to confusion, deliberate or not, between the privatisation of companies and the liberalisation of commercial trade, the WTO becoming the scapegoat that forces governments to privatise, with sacrifices such as labour cutbacks, which often follow.