by Cecilia Oh

Seattle, 29 November 99 -- The WTO's attempt to win over its civil society critics through organizing a symposium failed today when the organizers came under fire for their choice of speakers and their failure to deal with the public's criticisms of the WTO.

The "Seattle Symposium on International Trade Issues" had been organized by the WTO Secretariat at the suggestion of the United States as part of its exercise of assuring civil society groups that it would make the WTO more transparent and accountable.

Since the Symposium was planned some months ago, the criticisms of the WTO by NGOs had snowballed. Tens of thousands of their representatives have now come to Seattle, protesting against the WTO and conducting a range of  activities parallel to the official events.

The start of the official symposium was delayed by about four hours as a bomb scare at the Washington State Convention Center where the WTO is meeting, was cleared by security and a check was carried out, keeping more than a thousand participants (delegates, NGOs and media) waiting in the streets.

Several NGOs used the opportunity to hold "instant" press interviews with the media whilst they were all waiting for the building to be declared safe.

Other demonstrators had been kept a couple of blocks away by police who had cordoned off the area.

When the Symposium finally began, participants were provided with lectures and statements, mainly from the WTO Director-General and four leaders of developed countries (the EC, UK and two from the US), as well as two academics. Only two NGOs were invited to speak. Although the South African Trade Minister chaired the Panel, there was a conspicuous absence of Ministers from the South as speakers.

Most of the main speakers insisted on the necessity of a new comprehensive Round and on the importance and value of trade liberalization for developing countries.

WTO Director-General, Mike Moore, said that the WTO is democratic and that globalization is not a choice. Moore said that the OECD had projected that a new Round would boost output by more than US$1.2 trillion, and that developing countries would benefit the most.

UK Development Minister, Mrs. Clare Short, spoke at length on the inequities of the world economic system but used that analysis to make a pitch for a broad Round. She said that if there was only a limited Round, there would be a loss of opportunities for developing countries.

She also said that bringing new issues into the WTO, such as agreements on investment, competition and procurement, would bring benefits to developing countries.

Mr. Pascal Lamy, the EC Trade Commissioner, said that there was a need to address new issues, including animal welfare, consumer rights and labour, because they played an important role in public perceptions.

Said Lamy: "That is why we need a comprehensive Round. Although the developing countries fear that these issues would become protectionist, these issues have to be taken on board." He also disagreed with the NGO critics who said that there was no need for a new Round.

Prof. Jagdish Bhagwati, of Columbia University, said that the protest against globalization left a sense of deja vu. "Countries that did well were those that integrated in trade and investment", claimed Bhagwati. He however, opposed the incorporation of labour issues in the WTO.

US Trade Representative, Mrs. Charlene Barchefsky, said that the WTO has to address the new challenges to the multilateral trade system. Because of this, new issues such as electronic commerce, biotechnology, trade and environment, labour and transparency of the WTO have to be introduced. She said that the WTO had to be more open to public scrutiny.

During question time, Martin Khor of the Third World Network, said that many of the NGO participants were upset and disappointed by the way in which the Symposium had been conducted.

"It was less of a dialogue and more of a lecture," he said. The Panel was not balanced, and key NGOs, which had been vigorous and critical of the WTO had not been represented," he said.

He informed the participants that NGOs around the world had been preparing for the Ministerial for many months and that 2,500 people had attended an NGO "teach-in" over the weekend. Out of this had emerged a Civil Society Declaration of Seattle signed by over 2,000 groups asking for the review, repair and reform of the WTO.

He explained that this meant the need for a review of the implementation problems arising from the Uruguay Round, a repair or amendment of the existing agreements, and a reform of the system of decision-making and participation of developing countries.

WTO agreements such as those on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) must be reviewed for their impacts on development, livelihoods and the environment. He reiterated civil society's support for the African Group's position against patenting of life and their proposals for the amendment of Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS.

Khor called on Charlene Barshefsky to keep her promise of making the WTO more transparent by ensuring that there would be no repetition of the Singapore Conference experience where most Ministers were not invited to the small group meetings that negotiated the key parts of the text. He called on Barchefsky to ensure that there would be no "super green-room" meetings in Seattle.

He added that the NGOs had made a popular slogan for Seattle, 'No New Round, instead Turnaround' (meaning turnaround the rules and system of the WTO to make them more appropriate for development). They did not want a new Round as the proposed new issues were against the interests of developing countries and they would worsen the present imbalance.

Referring to some of the speakers, he said it was a "fraud" for developed countries to claim they were interested in a "development round" for developing countries, when they proposed new issues that would have serious negative effects on development; when they had not kept their promises of increasing market access in textiles and agriculture, when they had continued the abuse of anti-dumping measures, and opposed requests by developing countries to extend the transition period for TRIMs and TRIPS.

The NGOs and developing country governments had analyzed the potential effects of various agreements and concluded they could cause social and economic dislocation. In Seattle, Ministers could take these concerns seriously and take the opportunity to do something about it. Thus, he concluded, there should be no new Round with new issues, and instead he requested the US and EC to join the developing countries and NGOs to "turnaround" the WTO.

Maude Barlow, president of the 100,000-strong Council of Canadians, expressed concern that there had been no real dialogue here with the NGOs. She opposed the further liberalization of social services such as health and education, which were already resulting in serious social problems.

Several participants, speaking from the floor, also attacked the TRIPS agreement. Christian Friis Bach of the Danish Association for International Cooperation said that TRIPS had to be scaled back as the agreement was anti-poor, anti-free trade and anti-development. He added the rich countries became rich without having strong patent laws. Indeed, having slack patent rules in developing countries is the best way to facilitate technology transfer.

Medicine Sans Frontier said that its patients were dying from lack of access to medicines due to high prices caused by patent protection. The WTO should set up a group to look at the effects of IPRs and TRIPS on access of developing countries and the poor to medicine. At the afternoon session, Yash Tandon of SEATINI (Zimbabwe), speaking as a panelist, said that the WTO was being manipulated by a few big powers for their own interests, and that the WTO was a most non-transparent and hypocritical organization. He asked governments of the South not to sign away the rights of their people (through agreeing to new issues).

Muthoni Muriu of ENDA (Senegal) said she was also unhappy with the Symposium as it appeared to be an attempt to "put a positive spin" on the WTO's transparency. She said there should not be a new Round as this would divert attention from the need to address implementation problems and redress imbalances in existing agreements.

Recalling how a few weeks ago her aunt and her daughter had died from lupus and tuberculosis, she said that this brought home in a personal way the obstacles put up by TRIPS to poor people having access to medicine.

A representative of Greenpeace also criticized the Symposium for not being a real dialogue with NGOs. He cautioned developing countries not to be influenced by the US and Canadian proposals to set up a WTO working group on biotechnology. If accepted, these proposals would undermine the Biosafety Protocol of the UN Convention on Biodiversity.

A representative of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions said he was concerned about the commodification of information under pressure from WTO, and urged that the voices of citizens be heard.

He was also concerned that proposed changes to the GATS would subject libraries to foreign competition and also lead to privatization of libraries. (SUNS4563)

Cecilia Oh is a researcher with TWN.

The above article first appeared in the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) of which Chakravarthi Raghavan is the Chief Editor.

[c] 1999, SUNS - All rights reserved. May not be reproduced, reprinted or posted to any system or service without specific permission from SUNS. This limitation includes incorporation into a database, distribution via Usenet News, bulletin board systems, mailing lists, print media or broadcast. For information about reproduction or multi-user subscriptions please contact < >