The pre-Doha negotiation process and the Draft Ministerial Declaration
 
What has made the Doha meeting even more controversial has been the practice adopted by the current WTO Secretary General, Mike Moore, and the Chairman of the General Council, Stuart Harbinson of Hong Kong. The pre-Doha negotiations were intense and many developing countries put in tremendous energy and effort using scarce resources to put in their arguments and present papers which outline their positions in some detail. However, the first version of the Draft Ministerial Declaration paid only the slightest attention to these papers and demands.

The second draft, which is being presented at Doha, is even worse because It is being presented as a “clean” text, without brackets and indications of areas of disagreement, supposedly to simplify matters and make the draft easier to discuss. In reality, of course, it has become a statement of the position of a few powerful Northern WTO members, especially the US and the EU.
 
This has been a source of extreme disaffection for more than 30 developing country negotiating teams, including those of India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt, the least developed countries group and other Sub-Saharan countries. One umbrella grouping of civil society organisations which have been closely monitoring the negotiations found it necessary to issue a statement which condemned the process by which the draft Ministerial Declaration has been transmitted to the Doha Ministerial Conference. The statement makes the following points :
 
“The draft has not been given the consensus agreement of WTO Members, and there are serious differences between countries in many of its sections and paragraphs. In particular, many developing countries have repeatedly disagreed that negotiations should be launched on "new issues" (investment, competition, government procurement transparency and trade facilitation).  

Yet the draft specifically commits Ministers to agree to such negotiations, and does not provide for options.  This totally ignores the views of the people and governments of a majority of developing countries. 
 
Many developing countries also proposed to have a study process on the effects of past industrial tariff reductions on closure of local industries and job losses instead of negotiations.  Yet paragraph 16 commits the Ministers to launch negotiations, which can damage developing countries' local industries and cause serious job losses.
 
By not reflecting the differences in view (either through square brackets or showing the various options), the draft gives a very deceptive impression that there is already agreement, or that the views given command unanimous or overwhelming support. The deception in such a "clean text" has the serious effect of favouring the developed countries that have campaigned for the new issues, whilst placing the developing countries opposing these issues at a great disadvantage.
 
This incident is another outstanding example of the untransparent, discriminatory, biased and manipulative process of decision-making at the WTO, that favours a few major developed countries at the expense of the many developing countries.  It is ironic and hypocritical that such untransparent and discriminatory practices are so prevalent in an organization that claims transparency and non-discrimination as its core principles.
 
We consider the draft Declaration as illegitimate and a threat to the development and economic and social viability of developing countries.  
 
It has also failed to address the grave concerns of civil society on the effects of the WTO agreements (and future proposed rules) on food security, human rights, access of consumers to essential goods and services, and the right of local communities and workers to secure livelihoods.
 
In particular the TRIPS agreement has been debated and condemned by the public worldwide for its role in depriving consumers of access to essentials.  An organ of the UN Human Rights Commission has noted that implementation of TRIPS conflicts with the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights.  Yet the draft Ministerial Declaration does not deal with the wide range of issues brought up by citizen groups (including biopiracy) whilst the attempts by developing countries to clarify that nothing in TRIPS should prevent public health measures is being undermined by a few developed countries.”  (quoted from the Joint NGO Statement on the Draft Doha Ministerial Declaration)
 
The Government of India’s position
 
For once, the Indian government stand thus far at the WTO and at the Doha meeting in the first few days has been a correct one, that all further trade negotiations must be postponed until a proper and democratic review of the past agreement and its implementation has taken place. Such a review would immediately expose that most developing countries have gained little or nothing, especially in the areas of agriculture and textiles, while they have opened up their own markets and adversely affected their own incomes and employment.
 
However, while this position is most certainly to be welcomed and supported, it is also true that the same Government of India has itself engaged in the most sweeping and unjustified external liberalisation in the past few years, even well beyond any requirements and commitments made to the WTO. Therefore it is not clear whether this is a case of public posturing at an international forum in order to gain some domestic credibility, even while giving up on the important issues in terms of actual economic policies.
 
It is also not clear the extent to which the Indian government is prepared to stand up to pressure from the powerful Northern countries. A number of other developing countries have already succumbed to pressure, or gone in for bilateral deals which have muted their opposition to a new Round which would incorporate issues such as investment and competition policy. The outcome of the Doha Ministerial Meeting is still not clear; but what is definitely true is that strong domestic public opinion and the pressure of social movements may contribute to a more democratic outcome even in the closed door negotiations at Doha.