Last week the world saw and felt the final collapse of the Doha round. It has been clear that without real concessions from Europe and the United States, a collapse would be the round’s inevitable fate. Undoubtedly, no deal was better than the bad deal being discussed, and unfortunately there was just too little on offer. But that is barely a crumb of comfort for those seeking a more just trading system given the time, effort, and expense that have gone into a round that was, at least in name, about development.
As the inflexibility of the Northern countries became more and more evident – the poverty that is bred by the unjust trading systems has claimed a tragic human toll. More than 50 million children have died from poverty since the Doha round started in November 2001.
Given that Doha was the “development” round, that figure is even more appalling. Sadly there has been a major political failure. The need for development within a development round was not passed on in any meaningful way to those negotiating. It is clear that these efforts would achieve nothing until and unless the negotiators from Europe and the United States stopped treating the development round as a brand to use for political leverage, and instead actually accepted that the purpose of the negotiations was to cede a bit of the power from northern countries for a more just trading system.
The resistance from negotiators to ceding any power was starkly demonstrated in a now infamous letter leaked last year from within the European Commission. When faced with UK government objections to Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) being used to force developing countries to liberalise their markets, the EU’s top trade negotiator responded by stating that the UK change of position would have no effect on their negotiations. He went on to criticise that policy had actually been influenced by civil society, and he then requested the EU commissioner to lobby for the UK to back down. Not content with attacking the role of civil society, the letter went on to attack the influence of public opinion on trade policy, critiquing that the UK government had been influenced by the run up to an election!
Besides the EPA and other direct policy issues raised, the letter itself is clear evidence of just how trade negotiations have become one of the most unaccountable areas of supposed democratic countries. It is clear that the negotiators’ presumption to know what is best stems from their patronising attitudes toward developing country governments, and beyond the voices of their own citizens, which makes it is hard for all citizens to influence world trade decisions and the representatives purportedly acting in their name.
This democratic deficit is so stark that it even ignores that the Doha round, instituted in the wake of the September 11th attacks, was an implicit recognition of the important links between development and security. For those who did not deem the lives of more than 50 million children reason enough, perhaps the self-interested security arguments would motivate real change on issues like trade-distorting domestic subsidises. Unfortunately it hasn’t. The “security” budgets of northern countries cost their citizens literally hundreds of billions of dollars every year, yet the very same governments have not taken on the real action required to make the Doha round work – presumably because they were worried about the costs.
Sadly, this intransigence has caused the collapse of this round, and for the individuals involved it doesn’t really matter. So far there has been no significant political fallout. Governments are not being held to account, perhaps because the 50 million children who have died were not from the countries benefiting from existing trade systems. For those campaigning for trade justice worldwide, we need to ensure that the wider public is aware of what has been happening and further ensure that we hold governments to account for their failures in the Doha round.
Though we are disappointed by the recent collapse, we should not be demoralised in our campaigning. We should be inspired by the impact and success that campaigners are having all over the world. In a number of countries, these national and regional trade deals have become front-page news; in some it has even been the main issue in elections. Despite the current democratic deficits inside and outside the WTO, the future of the trading system is ours to change.
In the next few months there are a number of crucial questions that will surface regarding the future for the WTO. In an excellent article last Thursday, (www.twnside.org.sg/title2/twninfo457.htm), Martin Khor raised several some of these crucial questions. As we consider next steps there is a question I feel we are compelled to ask – that of how we as civil society respond and the degree to which we can work together. The debates on trade are already very complicated and distant for the wider public. The divisions within civil society have not helped that over recent years. To challenge the democratic deficits that exist, we need to mobilise enough citizens worldwide to force change. This in turn will require unifying and simplifying messages so we can achieve our common goal of trade justice. As countries shift towards greater regional and national negotiations, the future of the trading system around the world will come down to how well we react to this change and the degree of unity the various civil society actors can exhibit in our response over the coming months.
In Solidarity,
Owain James, Senior MDG Manager, CIVICUS
Below you will find all previous columns: Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS Secretary-General.
