Geneva, 18 March 1999

We, the undersigned representatives of the NGO community present at the WTO High Level Symposium on Trade and Development, would like to express our outrage at the manner in which the session on "Linkages between trade and development policies" was conducted by the chairperson Mr. Paul Collier (Director, Development Research Group, World Bank) as well as the content of his concluding remarks.

During the session, Mr. Collier gave more than ample time for the main speaker (Mr. Fred Bergsten) and the first discussant (Dr Keith Bezanson) but indicated time was up (even though they had spoken for a shorter length of time than these two) for Prof. Wontak Hong from Korea and Prof. Deepak Nayyar from India. This caused a tense exchange between the chairman and Prof. Deepak who protested that he was not being treated equitably. After this protest, Prof. Deepak continued speaking.

Towards the end of the session, Mr. Collier made a lengthy concluding speech in which he mainly presented his own views instead of the customary practice of providing a chairman's summary of the proceedings.

One of the dominant themes of the symposium (and the one before it, on trade and environment) had been the acute difficulties faced by African countries and least developed countries due to the way the trading system and trade rules had marginalised them so that these countries derived very little share of benefits, if any.

Far from reflecting the views of several participants who spoke on this theme, Collier in his conclusions accused African countries of having marginalised themselves in the WTO in five respects:

** "You didn't participate very much in the WTO";

** "You pressed for special and differential treatment, which does not meet your needs";

** "Your aspirations are for closed liberalisation within a region and not the world. This is a dead end. You should go for open regionalism";

** "Where African counties have had trade liberalisation, it has been low credibility liberalisation as it has not been locked in, so it discourages investment. The Swedish delegate has said the next Round should lock in their liberalisation." ;

** Collier also claimed that there is also a "capital hostile" environment in Africa. African countries are now more focused on trade in commodities as this hostile environment had killed off other activities.

He then added that the African elites did not want to undertake economic reforms because the status quo benefited them. "In political science we learn under what circumstances the elites would bite the bullet and make changes," he said. "Political science tells us that changes come when the elites get scared." He said the Africans ought now to be scared, because the future will be one of protectionism in the United States, unless the Americans could be offered something in a new round of trade negotiations.

On this last point, Mr. Collier was reemphasising the view of the panel's main speaker, Mr. Fred Bergsten, who had earlier warned developing countries that they would face "huge risks" of an American protectionist backlash if they did not agree to a new WTO trade round. Mr. Bergsten had urged developing countries to provide the developed countries with "increased and eventually full access" to their markets as part of a bargain with the US and EU not to erect new protectionist barriers. He had also told developing countries not to pursue demands for special and differential treatment.

We find Mr. Collier's comments most insulting to African countries and developing countries in general. They constitute blatant inaccuracies, tantamount to blaming the victims, whilst protecting and furthering the interests of the real culprits of protectionism.

If the great threat to the trading system is coming from protectionist forces in the US, as claimed by Mr. Collier and Mr. Bergsten, then it is the political elites of the United States that should be asked to bite the bullet and initiate change in the US.

We cannot understand why the chairman had instead blamed the Africans or other developing countries for US protectionism as they are the victims. By calling on developing countries to appease the US or pander to its demands under the threat that otherwise the US would turn protectionist against their products is tantamount to intimidation and blackmail to get developing countries to agree to a "New Round." At such a new Round, the aim is clear: developing countries will be pressured into giving "increased and eventually full access" of their markets (in Mr. Bergsten's words) to the developed countries.

Instead of condemning the powerful country or countries which were alleged to be having protectionist tendencies, the chairman was asking weak countries to give in because the strong country threatens to break international trade laws by going protectionist. He is calling on the developing countries to adopt an unacceptable policy of "Appeasement", which the civil society of the South (and indeed of the North too) would find most intolerable.

We also most strongly resent the Chairman's blatant attempt to shift all the blame of Africa's poverty and marginalisation to the Africans themselves, whilst totally denying the roles played by the international economic system and by the World Bank itself as well as the IMF and also the WTO.

It is untenable for a World Bank staff to take such an arrogant and inaccurate position when even the World Bank president has admitted to NGOs that poverty had worsened in Africa despite the structural adjustment programmes imposed by the Bank and IMF, and the Bank's own chief economist has severely criticised the "Washington Consensus" policies imposed on indebted countries. It is also obvious Mr. Collier does not understand how the WTO functions, otherwise he could never have accused Africa of deliberately marginalising themselves!

Mr. Collier also made insulting, inappropriate and inaccurate remarks in which he characterised the motives of specific NGOs. In the midst of a dialogue aimed at building trust and consensus, Mr.Collier's presumptuous statements were shocking.

The way the Chairman conducted the meeting as well as his concluding remarks has been insulting and he should apologise to the participants.

Mr. Collier has abused his position as chairman to give his own controversial views at the very end, which did not reflect the discussions and also did not give an opportunity for participants to comment on his "conclusions." After his speech, an NGO representative wanted to respond to the new and unchallenged points made by the chairman, but the chairman instead closed the meeting.

Collier's comments were particularly insensitive in view of the statements made during the symposium by many participants, from both South and North, about the need to redress the inability of developing countries to adequately participate in the WTO's decision making processes due to lack of resources.

Several African delegations had also spoken of the lack of benefits to their countries from the Uruguay Round and the lack of Northern countries' fulfillment of their obligations to developing countries.

Egypt's permanent representative to the WTO, Amb. Mounir Zahran, had said at the same session that his country had fundamental difficulties with the Uruguay Round agreements. "If we cannot resolve them, we cannot justify further liberalisation in developing countries. In an earlier session, the representative of Zimbabwe also said the Uruguay Round did not yield benefits to developing countries, which also had the lack of capacity to fulfil the requirements.

We therefore request the following:

1. Mr. Collier should apologise to the participants for his inaccurate and biased views and his procedures.

2. The WTO director(c)general should explain how and why in this important session, the main speaker and the chairman were both from the North. They were both criticising the special and differential provisions that are in favour of developing countries; and they both advocated that developing countries should appease the United States by fully opening up their markets in a new Round.

3. The WTO secretariat should not facilitate or organise efforts that pressurise countries to agree to a new Round by using intimidating tactics.

The great irony is anti(c)development positions on several points were highlighted in a symposium where the focus is supposed to be on development. This leads us to the strong suspicion that the session was intended not for a scientific or objective review of trade and development policies, but to be used as a platform for propaganda and prescriptions to pressure developing country delegations to accept a "New Round with new issues", especially negotiations for an investment agreement.

We call on all official delegations, South and North, not to succumb to such propaganda and prescription.

We are very disappointed and disillusioned with what has happened and we call on the WTO secretariat to ensure such an incident does not happen again.


Third World Network
International South Group Network (Zimbabwe)
ISODEC (Ghana)
Action Aid (Kenya)
Economic Policy Research Centre (Uganda)
Consumers International
World Wide Fund For Nature (International)
Greenpeace (Netherlands)
Swiss Coaliation of Development Organisations
World Development Movement (UK)
Sustainable Development Policy Institute (Bangladesh)
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (USA)
Centre for Concern (USA)
Research Foundation for Ecology, Technology and Science (India)
Forum Maghrebin pour l'Environment et le Developpement (Maroc)
Asian Indigenous Women's Network
Instituto del Tercer Mundo (Uruguay)
Consumers' Association of Penang (Malaysia)
Resource Management and Policy Analysis (Kenya)
Efficiency and Integrated Development Inc. (Nigeria)
Norwegian Forum for Environment and Development (Norway)
International NGO Committee on Human Rights in Trade and Investment Habitat International Coalition (South Africa)
Oxfam (Great Britain)
Berne Declaration Group (Switzerland)
BUKO Agrar Koordination (Germany)


Center for Environmental Public Advocacy (CEPA) (Slovak Republic)
Friends of the Earth (New Zealand)
ANPED, The Northern Alliance for Sustainability (The Netherlands)
Maurizio Farhan Ferrari, Forest Peoples Programme (England)
Barnard-Boecker Centre Foundation (Canada)
Institute for Food and Development Policy - Food First (USA)
Kairos Europa - Towards a Europe for Justice
Both ENDS (The Netherlands)
The Canadian Environmental Law Association (Canada)
Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and N Ireland)
Friends of the Earth International
The Edmonds Institute (USA)
Ecoropa (France)
Obseratoire de la Mondialisation (France)
Coordination franaise contre les clones de l'AMI (France)
Management projects for Individual empowerment and Democratic development (MAID) (The Netherlands)
International Human Rights Association (Germany)
The Corner House (Britain)
AID/WATCH (Australia)
Mexican Action Network on Free Trade (Mexico)
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Thailand)
WALHI (Indonesia)
Education Foundation (Pakistan)
Institute of Interdisciplinary Study and Research (Germany)
Pax Romana ICMICA (Thailand)
Eco News Africa
GATT WTO Campaign (Norway)
Dominican Sisters of Hope
Ursuline Sisters of Tildonk - US Province
MAI niet gezien! Anti-MAI campaign (The Netherlands)
Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era-DAWN (Fiji Islands)

As at 1st April, 1999