September 8/9
![]() |
©Alyssa Johl |
Will
it be a replay of Seattle, 1999? That’s a question on many minds as
delegates, 4,000 observers, 1,500 journalists, and tens of thousands of
critics arrive in Cancún for the fifth ministerial meeting of the World
Trade Organization.
Mexico is reported to be making it difficult for potential protestors
to attend the meetings or associated teach-ins and rallies. Some groups
report that their applications for visas or credentials have been
mysteriously “lost.” Mexico is charging representatives of NGOs $99 for
a visa-like document, a sum that will make it difficult for some
organizations to be represented. A Mexican newspaper recently reported
that the government has put together a list of 60 incomodos (undesirables) to be “monitored” this week in Cancún, including Ralph
Nader, Noam Chomsky, Lori Wallach of Public Citizen, and many other
prominent WTO critics.
In the official proceedings, it looks as if agricultural subsidies and
tariffs will again be a hot topic, and here the split between north and
south is quite stark. The US and the EU are at odds with other
countries (led by China, India, and Brazil) over how to proceed with
what they call the “liberalization” of trade in agricultural products.
All countries want to gain access to foreign markets; they also want to
protect their own farmers. It is a thorny problem that could, they say,
derail this meeting altogether.
Meanwhile, the big kahunas of the WTO want to launch formal
negotiations on four new topics - investment, transparency in
government procurement, competition policy, and trade facilitation -
referred to as the “Singapore issues” after the location of the 1996
meeting that first discussed them. What they hope for with respect to
government procurement, for example, would include rules making it
illegal for city governments to require that a percentage of city
contracts be awarded to companies within that city. It’s far more
complicated, of course, but it’s easy to see why there’s determined
resistance to the Singapore issues: they would ease rules that hinder
transnational corporations from doing business as they please.
In many ways, Cancún is the perfect place to have a WTO meeting. It is
like two cities that could hardly be more different. One, where the
ministerial will be held starting tomorrow, is Vegas times ten without
the casinos: scores of garish hotels cheek by jowl for miles along the
spectacular beach, teeming with tourists, mostly from the US, or so it
seems.
The other part of Cancún is more like the real world. The town has
outdoor restaurants, shops, street vendors, and street musicians. It is
here where the contingent of demonstrators is slowly gathering. And
now, the two Cancúns are divided by a fence, guarded by police and
military.
September 10
Late yesterday afternoon, in an overflowing press conference, a group
of agriculture ministers of developing countries insisted that their
views be reckoned with. Five ministers - from Brazil, India, China,
South Africa, and Costa Rica - representing a new coalition of 21
nations representing more than half of the world’s population and
nearly two thirds of the world’s farmers, are dead serious about
reforming trade in agricultural products… their way.
This comes on the heels of a long and difficult negotiation between the
US and the EU over agricultural policies. Both want to gain access to
foreign markets and both want to protect their own farmers. In the end
the US and the EU agreed to reduce subsidies and tariffs, as long as
the rest of the world agrees to throw open its doors to their
agricultural products - a bit of blackmail.
But the rest of the world may not play along. The new Group of 21 (G21)
has advanced its own draft document, which provides that developing
countries be treated differently from rich countries in order to fight
hunger and protect small farmers. This has the odor of something that
could derail this meeting altogether.
Which would suit Lori Wallach just fine. Wallach, of the US NGO Public
Citizen, was one of a number of speakers who participated in the
teach-in sponsored by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG)
yesterday. The story of the day was censorship of the IFG and its
long-planned event.
The teach-in was set to take place in the Teatro Cancún, roughly
halfway between the Convention Center and the town. I attended a
morning briefing near the center, then hopped on a municipal bus for
the ride to the theater. A mile or so from the theater, traffic came to
a halt, and soon we could see police cars blocking the road, lights
flashing. The federales had blocked traffic there, and again where the
road meets the town, which made it difficult to get to the theater and
held attendance to a minimum. (In Seattle, the IFG event sold out a
large opera house. In Cancún - where admission was free - the place was
almost empty.) In addition to the roadblocks, some reported having
heard a radio announcement to the effect that the teach-in had been
cancelled. We may never know the whole story, but suggestions that the
WTO was too nervous to tolerate informed dissent sound more than
plausible.
September 11
The conference has begun. The Director General of the WTO, the Foreign
Minister of Mexico, the Chairman of the WTO, and Mexican President
Vincente Fox welcomed the delegates, insisting that this was a
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to move the world forward toward a
tariff-free trading regime that will “lift all boats” and eradicate
poverty.
The nascent developing-country coalition was the subtext to most
everything else today. When WTO Director General Supachai Panitchpakdi
was asked if the agriculture proposal put forward by the new G21 would
be considered on a equal footing with the one put forward by the US and
the EU - and more or less adopted by WTO president Castillo - he
retreated into abstractions: We should concentrate on substance rather
than procedure, he said.
Today’s papers carry reports of the suicide of Kyung Hae Lee, a Korean
farmer and magazine editor, who stabbed himself to death yesterday at
the fence that divides the rest of the world from the WTO. He was
carrying a sign reading “WTO Kills Farmers” just before plunging a
knife into his chest. A friend of the farmer told reporters it was “an
act of sacrifice.” The tragedy came at the end of a mostly peaceful
demonstration attended by somewhere between 3,000 and 15,000 people.
During the opening ceremony, just as President Fox began his remarks, a
group of speakers from Tuesday’s teach-in boiled up in the press
working area holding signs reading “WTO is Undemocratic,” “WTO is
Obsolete,” “WTO is Anti-Development” and offering their comments on the
whole affair.
September 12
The G21 (recently swollen to 26 countries, according to late-afternoon
reports) has attracted much attention with its challenge to the US and
the EU. Some here think that if the attempt to agree on a framework for
further agriculture negotiations fails, the US might put its weight
behind the Singapore issues. But at another briefing yesterday
afternoon, a group of developing-country spokespeople vowed that the
Singapore issues will go nowhere at this meeting.
There were more demonstrations inside the convention center yesterday:
one of them raucous and the other a quite moving and dignified memorial
for the Korean farmer who took his life Wednesday. For that ceremony,
as many as 50 people wearing the green scarves of Mexican campesinos,
black and white arm bands, and carrying white flowers filed into the
big press briefing room and made quiet statements in tribute to Kyung
Hae Lee.
September 13
Agriculture still dominates the news here. A WTO spokesman promised
last evening that a new draft ministerial declaration, the basis for
further negotiations between the US, EU, and G21, would be given to the
conference chairman. The Brazilian delegate asked for statements from
NGOs around the world supporting G21 unity. Unless US arm-twisting
succeeds in fracturing the G21, the only concrete achievement of the
week may turn out to have been Cambodia’s and Nepal’s joining the WTO.
Before these meetings began, the WTO announced an agreement to allow
poor countries being ravaged by AIDS and other diseases to import cheap
generic drugs. But several knowledgable sources, including the
formidable Martin Khor of the Third World Network and Sharonann Lynch
of Health GAP, argue that there are so many conditions attached to the
deal that few if any generic drug makers in the Third World will be
willing or able to manufacture the medicines. The deal, they say, is in
fact a cleverly disguised continuation of the status quo.
September 14
If the definition of compromise is something that makes everyone
unhappy, then yesterday’s draft ministerial declaration was a howling
success. Nearly everyone had something bad to say about it.
The NGOs were cutting and passionate in their denunciation of the
draft, which, in the most contentious areas - agriculture, and whether
or not to launch negotiations on the Singapore issues - mainly
reflected the wishes of the US and the EU on agriculture, and of the EU
on Singapore.
“[The draft] completely ignores the concerns of the developing world,”
said Ronnie Hall of Friends of the Earth International. Meena Ramen of
Friends of the Earth Malaysia reported that developing-country
delegates, after being given copies of the document, streamed out of
the hall shaking their heads and looking dazed, not understanding how
they could have been so utterly ignored.
The agriculture section is hardly changed from the earlier draft, which
was very similar to a proposal put forward by the US and the EU in
August. It calls for developing countries to open their markets to
agricultural products from Europe and the US in return for vague
assurances of lowered export tariffs and reduced domestic price
supports. It’s as if competing proposals, such as the one brought to
the table by the Group of 21, did not exist.
In addition, and perhaps more surprisingly, the new draft includes the
four Singapore issues. Two days ago, 70 countries declared bluntly that
they would not tolerate inclusion of any of the Singapore issues in the
declaration.
One thing making lots of people nervous is that the final declaration
isn’t produced until a few hours before the meetings are scheduled to
end. This does not allow time for a careful review of the document,
especially by poor countries that don’t have flotillas of lawyers. This
happened two years ago at Doha, and when the text finally appeared, the
WTO, the US, and the EU put enormous pressure on other countries to
approve it. It worked, and a document that contained items many
countries would later object to was accepted. Remember, there are no
votes in the WTO. Everything is done by consensus and off the record.
September 15
The whole thing came crashing down Sunday afternoon, when Mexican
foreign minister and conference chairman Ernesto Derbez abruptly pulled
the plug. It had become apparent - to him at least - that further
pursuit of consensus would be futile. This time, the rich countries and
the WTO itself were not to have their way.
The key issue was agricultural tariffs and price supports. The second big problem was the Singapore issues.
Just before the meetings began, the US and the EU, which have long had
difficulties with each other’s agriculture policies, got together and
cooked up a joint proposal for this meeting. In response a new
coalition of Third World countries - including China, India, Brazil,
and 17 others, representing more than half the population of the world
- wrote their own proposal.
After three days of debate, Chairman Derbez submitted a new draft text
mid-day Saturday covering those and many other issues. The draft was
criticized by country after country at a session that lasted until 1:00
a.m. Sunday. Most of the criticism was directed toward the Singapore
issues, which a large number of developing countries had already said
they wanted no part of. Sunday morning, debate resumed. Chairman Derbez
suggested a compromise whereby two of the four Singapore issues would
be shelved and two put forward for formal negotiations. A number of
delegates said they’d have to consider it and consult with their allies
and governments back home. A recess was taken. When they returned, many
delegates - representing as many as 90 countries, according to one
African delegate - said there was no way they would agree to any of the
Singapore issues. (They’d been saying this most of the week, but
evidently some powerful people didn’t believe them.) At this point,
Derbez realized consensus was impossible and declared the meeting
adjourned.
Delegates from developing countries went to the press room, and
spontaneous press conferences and interviews sprang up in all corners
of the room. The delegates I happened to hear - from Uganda, Malaysia,
Indonesia, Guinea - were happy, explaining that they had been ignored
far too long; maybe now the rich countries would take them seriously.
NGOs critical of the WTO, including many environmental organizations,
were likewise celebrating the slowing, if not stopping, of a juggernaut
that threatens to roll over environmental protections the world over.
Then a string of press briefings began. First came the new Group of
21-plus. Ministers from Brazil, South Africa, Argentina, Ecuador, and
Egypt took turns explaining that they had put together a
well-considered and progressive agricultural alternative and had been
ignored, so they had no choice but to scuttle the meetings. They were
followed by the trade representative for the US, Robert Zoellick, who
said he regretted what had happened but the US would simply press
forward with bilateral trade deals. Fourteen are under negotiation, not
to mention the Free Trade Area of the Americas, which would include
every country in the western hemisphere except Cuba.
Next came WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi and Chairman
Derbez. The Director-General regretted the failure of the meeting, as
did the Chairman; both pledged to press on in Geneva, the WTO’s
headquarters. Reporters’ questions suggested that not a small number of
European delegates thought Chairman Derbez had given up too soon.
Others wondered why he had chosen to have Singapore debated before
agriculture. He explained that Singapore was clearly the most
contentious issue, and he needed to see if there was room for
compromise.
Next came the EU and its formidable representative Pascal Lamy. He
blamed the mess on the WTO itself. “I called it a medieval institution
in Seattle and got a lot of flack then. I say the same thing now.” But
in fact, it was Lamy and the EU that insisted on including the
Singapore issues in the draft, which doomed the meeting.
So what to make of all this? Most of the speakers in a long night of
press conferences acknowledged that this is a serious setback but not a
fatal one, that the WTO will regroup in Geneva and soldier on. Others
think the outcome may signal something far more profound, that the
balance of geopolitical power may be beginning to change, that the rest
of the world is coming together to challenge the power and arrogance of
the US and the EU.
Greenpeace’s Marcello Furtado spoke for many when he said that either
the WTO must change fundamentally or make way for a new and more fair
and democratic organization to govern international trade.
Time will tell whether this was just a speed bump on the fast track to
the money-is-everything global village or whether it may be the
beginning of a move toward a more sustainable system that will better
serve both the earth and its inhabitants. Many people and
organizations, inspired by what happened yesterday, will be working
hard to ensure that it’s the second possibility that comes true.
Tom Turner is senior editor at Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund,
former editor of Not Man Apart, and an old friend of Earth Island. He
lives in the San Francisco Bay Area.
We don’t have a paywall because, as a nonprofit publication, our mission is to inform, educate and inspire action to protect our living world. Which is why we rely on readers like you for support. If you believe in the work we do, please consider making a tax-deductible year-end donation to our Green Journalism Fund.
DonateGet four issues of the magazine at the discounted rate of $20.