PRESS STATEMENT
WTO: Don't go to Singapore!
Civil society groups belonging to the worldwide Our World Is Not For Sale! coalition [1] call on governments not to move the World Trade Organisation's 4th Ministerial to Singapore, where the public's right to demonstrate is effectively illegal and developing countries will find it considerably more difficult to participate. If moved, the Ministerial should be held in Geneva.
Singapore's Internal Security Act prevents public demonstrations Civil society groups, including those not accredited to the WTO Ministerial, wish to hold peaceful demonstrations outside the Ministerial. This had been guaranteed to NGOs by the Qatar authorities. However, the laws in Singapore make this extremely difficult and demonstrations are unheard of. A police permit is required before it is legal to hold any gathering of more than 5 persons. Even more worrying, Singapore's Internal Security Act gives Singapore's government the right to arrest anyone they deem a threat to internal security and to detain them without trial.
Ronnie Hall of Friends of the Earth International said: "The WTO already faces a crisis of legitimacy. Selecting Qatar as a venue raised eyebrows: moving to Singapore will confirm the WTO's determination to avoid legitimate dissent, the lifeblood of democracy. The WTO must guarantee that wherever the Ministerial is finally held, civil society groups are allowed to assemble and demonstrate peacefully."
Continued bias against developing country participation One of WTO's key faults, evident in and since the WTO's 3rd Seattle Ministerial is the difficulty that developing countries have in participating in WTO negotiations. A major problem is their continued exclusion from the now notorious 'green room' meetings, in which certain carefully-selected governments are invited to informal discussions.
Developing countries' anger about this situation was one of the main reasons why the Seattle Ministerial collapsed, but it seems that nothing has changed since then, despite all the promises made. Last week's 'mini-Ministerial' in Singapore was nothing other than the green room writ large, with a handful of governments deciding how, when and where to move forward on the WTOs' agenda [2].
The other factor which disadvantages developing country delegates is the high cost of maintaining negotiators in Geneva and sending them to Ministerials around the world. Aileen Kwa of Focus on the Global South said: "If goverments opt to move the Ministerial to Singapore rather than Geneva, they will be making it much harder for poorer countries to participate. Many developing countries are currently faced with funding problems and cannot be adequately represented at a Ministerial outside Geneva. This seriously weakens their ability to ensure their interests are taken into consideration in critical negotiations. The Ministerial should be in Geneva."
[1] The following organisations who particpate in the Our World Is Not For Sale coalition support this press release.Any of the people listed can be contacted to discuss it [provide contact details for each group and web address of OWINFS statement].
Friends of the Earth International, Ronnie Hall, +44 7967 017281 (mobile) Focus on the Global South, Nicola Bullard, 662 2187363, or Aileen Kwa, 41 22 7918050 Trade Information Project, Shefali Sharma, 41 22 7890724
[2] Only 21 Members of 142 WTO members were invited to the mini-Ministerial held in Singapore where key decisions were taken on outstanding issues. The Chair of the General Council and the Director General have defended these green room practices by rationalising that closed consultations have been followed-up by open-ended General Council meetings. However, these open-ended meetings have been extremely limited in effectiveness since the views of the majority expressed are not reflected in the draft Ministerial text. Instead, the views expressed in closed Green Room consultations are taken as the basis for drafting the text. This practice seriously calls into question the lack of democratic process and accountability of the institution.:
