By Ravi Kanth
GENEVA--Members of the World Trade Organization July 30 remained deeply divided over the scope of the Doha ministerial agenda during the crucial "reality check" meeting of the General Council. However, a few countries said they would oppose a new round of trade negotiations if their implementation concerns and the rapid liberalization of global farm trade were not addressed on a priority basis.
The four Quad members--the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Canada--reiterated they would wholeheartedly support the launch of a new round of trade negotiations. However, the four trade majors maintained differing positions on agriculture, environment, investment rules, and competition rules.
Similarly, some key Latin American countries like Brazil July 30 came out in support of full-fledged negotiations in areas like trade and investment, trade and competition policy, antidumping and subsidies rules, and some issues of environment. However, Brazil said there should be an expanded scope of Article 20 for farm trade liberalization talks and also the issue of TRIPS, particularly access to medicines and the patent rules. Mexico said it would support the new round of trade negotiations and demanded that antidumping be part of the new agenda.
Members of the MERCOSUR group in Latin America that include Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile, said "agriculture must be a central element in an eventual new round of trade negotiations the result of which must be to put agriculture under the same rules and disciplines already applied on other tradable goods."
The members of the like-minded group that includes India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Egypt, and Dominican Republic took the position that resolution of implementation issues is a central priority for them. But some members like Malaysia seemed willing to join a new round of trade negotiations if the agenda is just limited to industrial tariffs and trade facilitation and the existing built-in agenda of agriculture and services.
Quad Position
Ahead of the July 30 "reality check" meeting the four Quad members met in Annecy, France to narrow down their differences. Trade sources said the United States and the EU continued to hold divergent positions on agriculture and environment, adding that there was little progress. Japan's Ambassador Koichi Haraguchi, who spoke first among the four Quad members, urged the trade body's members to adopt a "conciliatory" attitude to various new issues like trade and investment, trade and competition policy, and environment. He said it is wrong to oppose a broad-based agenda for a new round of trade negotiations. Japan, Ambassador Haraguchi said, would like to have a large and comprehensive trade agenda for a new round of trade negotiations.
Echoing a similar position, the EU's director general of trade Peter Carl said that Brussels is committed to an early harvest on some key implementation issues. However, the EU did not say whether it would immediately accept the General Council chairman Stuart Harbinson and the WTO Director General Mike Moore's text on implementation issues. The EU also said it is willing to address most of the market access and technical assistance of least developed countries.
Clarification on Environment
As regards the contentious areas of environment, the EU said they want "to clarify some aspects of the trade and environment relationship," arguing that "we should clarify the fine print to avoid too much uncertainty for dispute settlement." Peter Carl said the EU does not want to amend the SPS agreement, and added that there should be "explicit recognition that any clarification of the rules should be faithful to the basic principles on which we have already agreed in the past." Carl, the EU's chief trade negotiator, conceded that "the four issues on which perhaps the most passionate views are held by a large number of members--are those of implementation, agriculture, antidumping, and environment," saying "we need substantial progress towards mutually satisfactory outcomes on all these four issues, with which we can all live from the political and economic viewpoint." He did not, however, address issues such as trade facilitation, and transparency in government procurement, and more importantly, the agenda for agriculture trade liberalization.
The deputy U.S. trade representative Peter Allegier said the Harbinson's report showed "a wide and growing support for enlarging the agenda." On implementation, the United States said that it "will continue to work with countries to generate positive results on implementation."
Allegier said in such areas "as non-agricultural market access, services, trade facilitation and transparency in government procurement, the remaining differences appear quite manageable." He said the United States would support a modest negotiating agenda which will meet the interests of other members, adding that "the parameters of such initial negotiating efforts would have to be clearly defined." Allegier said that "with respect to competition policy, the U.S. sees merit in a modest negotiating agenda of core competition principles of transparency, non-discrimination, and procedural fairness."
U.S. Supports Mandate for Farm Talks
In contrast to the EU's silence on agricultural negotiating mandate, the United States said it "continues to support an ambitious mandate for agricultural negotiations," arguing that the WTO members must "commit to an ambitious negotiating outcome that results in fundamental agricultural reform, in line with the agreed objective of establishing a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system." Similarly, in comparison to the EU's demand to clarify rules in the environment, the United States agreed with the chairman's assessment that "there is no inherent policy contradiction between upholding and safeguarding an open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system, and acting for the protection of the environment, and the promotion of sustainable development." In short, the U.S. did not attach importance to the precautionary principle, compatibility between multilateral environment agreements and WTO rules, and eco-labeling, which are at the core of the EU's trade agenda.
Copyright c 2001 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.:
