Games of the Colonial Masters: Report on the APL’s Participation in the Global Action Against the WTO

Two years after the “Battle of Seattle,” the APL was once again directly involved in the global campaign to “sink or shrink” the World Trade Organization (WTO) during its 4^th Ministerial Conference held in Doha, Qatar last 8-14 November 2001.[1]

However, unlike in 1999, this year’s campaign had two major elements: the global action against the WTO and its corporate-led “free trade” agenda; and, the NGO and people’s organizations’ direct engagement with the trade organization in Doha.

And unlike in 1999, the WTO, the transnational corporations and the countries of the North, succeeded in arm twisting the South into signing on to an agreement which promises to realize previous “pledges of benefits from trade” in exchange for what appears, by all indications, to be a new round of negotiations. This despite the gallant efforts put up by a number of countries, especially India and the poor countries of Africa, and by the global democratic movement.

Yet despite its claims of “success,” the WTO came out of Doha far more tainted with anti-democratic practices not only of its members from the North but also of its secretariat. Thus it now faces deeper questions on its legitimacy.

The Global Day of Action

Though the WTO tried to hide in Doha, the global democratic movement still managed to hound it – on a global scale. From 8-10 November 2001, social movements, trade unions and other peoples’ organizations around the world held massive rallies to assert the fact that “our world is not for sale” and that the global trade arrangements should put “people before profits.”  According to BRIDGES Weekly Trade News Digest, mass actions “took place in cities such as Paris, Bangkok, Washington, Hong Kong, Tokyo, New Delhi, Toronto, New York, Geneva and numerous others; with numbers ranging from a few hundred to well over a 100,000.”[2] Manila, too, was not spared.

For its part, the APL, together with the Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK), Bukluran sa Ikauunlad ng Sosyalistang Isip at Gawa (BISIG) and other fraternal organizations, held two days of actions to press for “a global ethic, one in which trade, investments and global economic and political arrangements work for poor people and their communities through sustainable development.”

Last 8 November 2001, a number of APL activists, especially from the urban poor communities, joined hands with students and peasants in picketing Malacañang. The next day, 9 November 2001, almost a hundred APL members participated in the BISIG-led rally in front of the US Embassy to denounce the US’ and the EU’s boneheaded insistence on launching a new round. More than 500 took part in this rally.

Both actions carried the issues raised by the APL against the WTO as contained in its position paper entitled “People Before Profits.” In this document, the APL reiterated its opposition to a new round and called on the WTO to address the numerous inequities which resulted from the previous round – the Uruguay Round.  The APL opposed the introduction of investment policies in the WTO. It called for the democratization of the WTO and reforms in the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). It demanded an assessment on the impact of the Uruguay Round and the reorientation of the Agreement on Agriculture with the end view of instituting "food sovereignty" – a concept which emphasizes the centrality of national decision-making structures in determining policies for “food security.” It also called for a “development box.” The APL also demanded: that public services must be kept away from the WTO; an end to corporate patent protection and patenting on life; and institutionalization of people’s participation in all trade negotiations. Finally, the APL called for the development of the domestic market alongside the export market. In this way, “we need not fall ill each time the US sneezes.”

These actions in Manila were especially helpful in reminding the working people of the negative implications of WTO policies at a time when the local media seemed to be concerned with sensational issues.

Protest Actions in Doha

Despite its greatly reduced delegation and massive security preparations, the WTO failed to silence the NGOs, trade unions and people’s organizations that made it to the desert emirate.[3] Daily protests actions were held right inside the Sheraton Doha where the official WTO conference was being held. APL and Akbayan leaders played an active role in the planning and execution of these actions.

Outside the opening ceremony of the Ministerial last 9 November 2001, approximately 100 activists stood carrying signs that read "NO Voice in the WTO." Many of them put tape over their mouths as a symbolic protest against what they called the "peoples’ absence from the negotiating rooms of the WTO."  After the official trade delegates had filed in, the demonstrators started chanting, "What do we want? Democracy!"

The next day, the activists picketed against the US Trade Representative to denounce the arm-twisting tactics employed by the US and the EU against many countries of the South which are resisting the launching of a new round. On the same day, the Focus on the Global South, the APL, Food First and a host of other NGOs held a press conference on the linkages between the war against terrorism and the WTO in the NGO Center near Sheraton Doha.  Agence France Presse quoted the APL representative as saying that “the suicide jet liner bombings were being used to bamboozle developing countries into implementing a new trade round,” and that the “outrages have changed the international scene… against the poor and in favor of the right wingers."

On 11 November, the activists adopted a more creative form of delivering their messages by staging a skit near the media center of Sheraton Doha. Activists parodied Mike Moore (WTO Director General), Pascal Lamy (EU Trade Representative) and Robert Zoellick (US Trade Representative), depicting them as puppets being manipulated by transnational corporations. Meanwhile, sectoral representatives were given the chance to proclaim their demands through chants such as “life before trade,” “stop the GATS,” “no arm-twisting,” “food rights for the poor,” “workers’ rights are union rights,” etc.

On 12 November 2001, the activists focused on the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) and its dire effects on public health and food security. On the final day, 13 November 2001, at least 50 activists strolled down the corridors of Sheraton Doha bearing posters and distributing flyers reminding the South of the North’s previous “check” which bounced – referring to the unrealized promises of the Uruguay Round – while chanting “No more lies!”

None of the activists was arrested or detained in any of these actions.

Bridging the Gap Between the Trade Unions and the NGOs

While on the surface the trade unions, led by the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), and the various NGOs, social movements and people’s organizations revolving around the “Our World is Not for Sale”[4] statement seemed to work hand in hand in Doha, a closer look reveals long standing undercurrents between the two forces, albeit on a lower intensity as it was in Seattle. It was unfortunate that in spite of a number of convergences on the positions taken by both groups, unity between them is still hampered by a “trust deficit.”  The APL and Akbayan representatives tried to take on the difficult task of bridging this gap.

The ICFTU, and its allied labor-based NGO network SOLIDAR[5], is by far the most consolidated block among the NGO delegation in Doha. The size, relative cohesion, caliber, and connection of its delegation provided it with massive lobbying capability. However, despite its clear positions on a number of issues regarding the WTO and the trade regime it promotes, it has chosen to focus its energy almost exclusively on its campaign to strengthen the draft Ministerial Declaration’s language on labor rights. It should be noted here that this issue remains controversial, even among the NGOs, as it is suspected by some as a possible “protectionist measure” which the North can use against the South. This narrow advocacy severely limited its ability to build alliances not only with other NGOs but also among some of the developing and least developed countries. SOLIDAR tried to balance this by taking on TRIPs, GATS and the social clause issues.

The NGOs loosely called as the “Sink or Shrink” coalition, on the other hand, has the biggest delegation. Within this group, one can find not only a strong “activist spirit” but also a rich vein of intellectual resources which some developing and least developed countries actually used as a platform for reforming the WTO.  But the diversity of the concerns of its “members,” and the fact that the coalition lacks a unified ideological position on the WTO, worked against its effectiveness in lobbying as a coalition.

The APL representative, as part of the SOLIDAR delegation, participated in the meetings of the ICFTU. At the same time, the APL representative was designated by SOLIDAR as its “liaison officer” with the “Sink or Shrink” coalition. As such, he actively participated in its daily meetings and numerous activities conducted by the coalition. As part of its efforts to help strengthen linkages between trade unions and the NGOs even after Doha, the APL managed to develop possible project cooperation with the Oxfam USA on furthering the debate on the social clause and protectionism. The FES has also announced that it will hold a follow-up to the Bangkok Dialogue between the ICFTU and the NGOs that was started early this year.

Playing the Colonial Masters’ Game

During the Uruguay Round, the North had hoodwinked the South into opening wide swaths of its economy, while the former continues to cling to its protectionist measures in various ways. This means that contrary to the expectations of the South, the UR Round failed to provide them with better market access to the markets of the North. Worse, they found their products competing in restricted markets against heavily subsidized goods from the North. OECD countries are spending as much as US $350 billion annually on subsidies – almost US $1 billion a day!

As a consequence, WTO agreements have miserably failed to live up to their promises.  They have worsened global poverty and social exclusion by engendering massive unemployment, while at the same time have further enriched the North and the transnational corporations. Instead of promoting sustainable development, they have rolled back whatever development the South has gained so far. All empirical evidences are too damning to be ignored.

It was in this context that the South came to Doha determined, in varying degrees, to resist any moves for a new round unless the inequities of the WTO agreements are corrected. The South had a long list of demands – 104 implementation issues as the declaration of the Group of 77 puts it – which includes: market access; removal of subsidies and other trade-distorting support on exports; anti-dumping; reforming the TRIPS agreement to help them ensure their citizen’s health through accessible drugs; long-overdue assessment of the GATS before proceeding with further negotiations; enhanced capability to participate in WTO; insertion of a “development box,” etc. 

The North, led by the “Quads,”[6] on the other hand, was more determined, desperate even, to launch a new round. As Welden Bello puts it:

“The European Union and the United States… have put some of their differences aside temporarily to present a common front for a new round of trade negotiations that would focus on expanding the mandate of the WTO…”.[7]

The North is primarily interested on the so-called "new issues" of investment, competition policy, government procurement, trade facilitation and environment.

The Trade Minister of Tanzania poignantly captured the differences between the interests of the North and the South when he said that the issues faced by the former are of “cosmetic values” while those of the later are of “life and death issues.” He added that if France or the US mishandles an issue in Doha, “they stand to loss elections.” But if the LDCs mishandle an issue, “people will die.”[8]

As expected, the US and EU were not ready to listen to his pleas.

On the contrary, in their desperation, both the US and the EU employed a lot of tricks they have polished to perfection after all these years of being colonial masters. Maximizing the use of the September 11 tragedy as a psychological weapon against those resisting the WTO and the new round; convening of “green room” meetings before and during the Doha Conference; arm twisting some of the countries from the South; the use of the “green men”[9] process in Doha; and, the issuance of the controversial draft Ministerial Declaration which completely ignored the demands of the South are but some of the things they did to ram through a new round.

But perhaps the most pernicious trick they pulled was the classic “divide and rule” tactics. The US’s and the EU’s use of the “carrot and stick” diplomacy (usually in the form of promises of more aid or the threat of its withdrawal) and its masterful employment of deceit in cahoots with the WTO Secretariat, were perhaps the biggest factor which led to the eventual collapse of the South’s resistance. It was so successful, that on the 11^th hour, the developing countries ended up fighting each other. This was exemplified in the case of the Philippines’ and Thailand’s row over canned tuna with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of countries.

However, it should be emphasized that the contemptuous, condescending and arrogant behavior of the colonial masters are not the sole property of the North. Even our country’s own trade representative, Secretary Mar Roxas, exhibited such an attitude in relating with NGOs.

To make matters worse, the Philippine trade delegation was sent by President GMA to Doha with their hands tied. According to a senior trade official, President GMA gave them strict instructions not to obstruct a new deal. This obviously limited their elbowroom in a situation where playing hardball was the name of the game.

Thus, the fact that some countries from the South managed to hold out long enough to force the WTO Conference to work more than 20 hours beyond its scheduled adjournment was by itself quite a feat.

To sum it up, the South was trounced in Doha.

The “Anti-development Round”

There is no unanimity in what the result of the Doha conference was. For some it was the start of a new round of negotiations. Pascal Lamy and Mike Moore even refers to it as the “Doha Development Round.” For others, calling it a new “round” of trade talks “might be stretching the concept of a round.” Some NGOs within the “Shrink or Sink” coalition are still debating this point.

My own sense is that, for all intents and purposes, the Doha Declaration is directed towards negotiations to cover the so-called "new issues" of investments, competition policy, government procurement and trade facilitation after the 5th Session of the Ministerial Conference (which will be held in 2004), with the proviso that there is "explicit consensus… on modalities of negotiations."[10] This is buttressed by Paragraph 45 which gives a deadline for the conclusion on negotiations (1 January 2005) and by Paragraph 46 that calls for the creation of a "Trade Negotiations Committee" (with the appropriate acronym of TNC), which does not exist in the WTO structure but which was also created prior to the launching of the Uruguay Round. The TNC was even directed to convene "its first meeting not later than 31 January 2002." Finally, Paragraph 47 states that “negotiations shall be treated as parts of a single undertaking” which allows for cross sectoral concessions.

But whether it is a round or not remains controversial, what is not debatable is that whatever was launched in Doha does not augur well for the South, especially for the majority of the working people.  We would certainly see “developments,” but not for the poor but for corporate interests. In fact, the South stands to loss more than what it may gain, if any.

Aside from paving the way for a possible new round, the Ministerial Declaration:

1.      Relegated the “implementation issues” to the sidelines;

2.      Failed to provide a clear guidance to the ongoing mandatory negotiations on agriculture. While the language on agriculture says that it is “aimed at: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support” it was however preceded by a the contradictory phrase "without prejudging the outcome of the negotiations" which obviously makes the whole sentence confusing. The declaration also ignored the demands for a “development box.”[11]

3.      Would hasten the liberalization of trade in services. The current negotiation on GATS is being done without any time frame to speak of. Now with this declaration, members are being rushed to submit their commitments by 31 March 2003. This effectively dismissed the demands of a number of countries to hold assessments on the impact of GATS on development before further proceeding with the negotiations. It also ignored workers’ demands for a clear exclusion of sensitive public services (such as education and health) from GATS.

4.      Ignored demands for changes in the TRIPs agreement to stop biopiracy and patents on life.

5.      While the language on environment merely calls for studies and clarification on the relationship between trade and environment, and the decision on the "desirability of negotiations" is yet to be taken during the 5th Ministerial Conference, they nonetheless provide an avenue for the WTO to slowly bring under its control “environmental goods and services” such as drinking water.

Even the Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, hailed by many as a victory of the South and the global democratic movement against the tyranny of the pharmaceutical corporations, must be viewed as a “watered-down” version of what was originally demanded. While this is certainly a political victory, it nonetheless leaves the original language of the TRIPS agreement untouched. Thus, legally, the transnationals, through their governments in the North, could still challenge WTO members that may try to relax patent protection over medicines in order to promote accessible generic drugs. Furthermore, the declaration failed to resolve the contentious issue of “parallel importation” which would allow the free flow of affordable medicines.

Finally, a few words on the controversial issue of the social clause. A comparison of the draft declaration with the final version reveals that the ICFTU lobby might have succeeded, in a sense.  The draft versions were lambasted by the ICFTU as a “step backwards” in strengthening the language on labor rights as it limited the workers’ venue for advocating  these issues to the “toothless” ILO. The sentence that the, “ILO provides the appropriate forum for a substantive dialogue on various aspects of this issue,” found in the draft versions would have allowed the WTO to avoid this issue altogether. However, this was eventually dropped in the final Ministerial Declaration. This does not mean that the ICFTU got what it wanted, but at least it managed to keep the possibility of inserting a “social clause” in future WTO negotiations. It should be noted that the ICFTU has refined its ideas on the social clause as well as the strategy on implementing the same. As the outgoing ICFTU President explained, Bill Jordan, they are not asking for the WTO to work on this issue, but for it to work with the ILO in developing a coherent policy on ensuring the adherence to the ILO core labor standards. He added that they are not asking for WTO sanctions on countries that violate core labor standards, but rather to provide incentives for its observance.

Where do we go from here?

Mike Moore was right in thanking the trade ministers for “saving the WTO” at the closing of the Doha Conference. After all, the WTO got a new lease on life after preventing Doha from turning into Seattle’s sequel.

But this may still turn out to be a pyrrhic victory for the North. Rather than being strengthened, the WTO that emerged from Doha was riddled with deeper questions on its credibility and legitimacy – without which, any “institutions, no matter how seemingly solid they may seem, eventually unravel.”[12] 

The key battle now for all anti-neoliberal activists is how to block any "explicit consensus…on modalities of negotiations" to prevent the WTO from expanding its current mandate. But to do so would require a number of things from the social movement.

Among these things are:

1.      Cohesive Movement Against the WTO. Given the complexity of the WTO, there is a need to build a “think tank” that would provide the social movement with a clear analysis of, and alternatives to, the WTO and the disastrous trade regime it promotes. Its primary task is to develop a common platform around which a popular coalition of NGOs, trade unions, peoples’ organizations and social movements can coalesce to quantitatively improve its collective capacity to popularize issues revolving around the WTO. For starters, the APL and LEARN must start serious work on popularizing WTO issues among its own constituents.

2.      South-South Networking. If there is anything the South should have learned in Doha, at the very least, it should be the need to build stronger coordination among them. Thus social movement have to help facilitate in building stronger South-South coordination not only among the developing and least developed countries, but more so among NGOs, trade unions and peoples’ organizations. The Global Network initiative of LEARN is a good place to start thinking along these lines. To continue bridging the gap between the global trade unions and the NGOs, its is imperative for the APL and LEARN to maintain its presence in the FES-sponsored Bangkok Dialogue slated to be held first quarter of next year. It is also necessary to follow-up on the linkage with Oxfam USA.   

3.      Refining our Strategy. With the accession of China into WTO, and with the credible threat of a new round in two years’ time, there is a need for the social movement to rethink their strategies. Not only do we have to fine-tune the dialectics of reforming or dismantling the WTO, but we also need to revisit our position on key issues such as the social clause.

4.      Advocating Transparency in all Trade Negotiations. There is a need to put pressure on government to ensure people’s participation in any trade negotiations. A good starting point would be to hold a public Doha Debriefing conference with the Philippine trade officials themselves. But more than this, there is a need to push for the convening of a labor council within the Philippine WTO Commission. Priority should be given to this type of engagement in view of the ongoing negotiation on the GATS agreement, and the possible new round on trade negotiations two years from now.