THE STALEMATE IN THE WTO: REPOSITIONING THE---

WTO MOCK SUMMIT
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
BAYERO UNIVERSITY, KANO Nigeria



BRIEFING PAPER: NO.2


THE STALEMATE IN THE WTO: REPOSITIONING THE GLOBAL TRADE ORGANISATION OR TO CEASE TO EXIST


BY

M. M. YUSIF – DIRECTOR OF THE MOCK SUMMIT

2009


Introduction
The Doha Round Trade and Development promises is the major issue which has produced the bomb now threatening the ever powerful global institution managing international trade i.e. World Trade Organisation (W.T.O). From the Doha through Concun to Hong Kong the Ministerial Summits of the Organisation nearly collapsed, sending message that the Great Trade Monitor is in crisis which we don’t yet know the end.

But it is clear that the WTO regime is at risk. As if all members from the developing world wanted an opening to pour out their dissatisfaction with the WTO multilateral system, many other issues are joined on the Doha Agenda, all to be resolved before the legitimacy of the trade regime is accepted.

Indeed, since Doha Minestrial Conference in 2001 there had been many negotiations on implementation of the Agenda, yet there is no progress. The united state of America (US) and European Union (EU) in particular have refused to concede over their differences on agricultural trade issues.

This problem is further illustrated by a stalemate, that three years after Hong Kong, Ministrial conference is not convened. A violation of the constitution of WTO that the Ministers summit meets not more than every two years (Yusif M. M. 2008).

This briefing paper on the WTO Mock Summit 2009 predicts two scenario for WTO-Regime:
1. The organisation will be re-positioned by making some reforms to accommodate some interests of the developing countries.
2. Alternatives to the WTO multilateral trade system would be constructed by the rich countries and allow the WTO to die.
Prelude to Doha Development Round
Less than five years after the Uruguay Round it became very obvious that Third World Country members of the Great WTO are not satisfied with the emerging New Multilateral Trade Regime.

It is not surprising as the many years of consultation and negotiation which finally ended in Uruguay Round did not involve countries from the developing world. The major issues and conflict were between the US and EU and were resolved before the GATT Uruguay Round was convened to ratify the agreement where the developing countries were coerced to endorse.

Form the beginning the regime was set up on an undemocratic foundation. The history of the UR recorded that a document of over five hundred pages containing what is called “Uruguay Agreements” was first seen by developing country members at the meeting and was swiftly approved, establishing WTO-multilateral trade regime.

The new regime came with many promises, including on issues beyond trade such as trade-related intellectual property; trade related investment measures; and the trade in services. These are entirely new provisions from the old regime i.e. GATT. Agricultural trade too, though is not new but many of its old provisions are altered. The developing countries were not engaged and or even allowed to ask questions. On studying these and the other provisions, after ratification of the URA, they found that the New Trade Regime is not in any way to promote development in the former colonial countries.

The drastic scheme of the WTO system to subordinate global trade to overall interests of the US, has made the third world countries to take it that now they are in a second colonisation. They have seen in particular from the provisions of intellectual property right that they can never see the industrialisation and technological development of their countries. They have come to realise that it is difficult to meet international standard of patent right on even their traditional knowledge, as they would forever rely on big corporations from Europe and America.

Nevertheless, the new trade regime had to be tolerated, monitored and watched both by members and non-members to the next round of trade negotiations. The next after the Uruguay was the Singapore 1996.

The Singapore was more or less successful. The poor countries did not fully understand the tricks of the rich. They only fervently opposed introduction of new issues, before the old ones of the UR are clarified and thrashed out. The Singapore Round was simple. Less controversial, it was closed quietly with expectation that before the next round, an agreement will be found on all the UR issues.

The EU however, came up with additional issues called the “Singapore issues” to add on what would be on the agenda for talks before the next round. These are;
1. investment protection,
2. competition policy,
3. transparency in government procurement, and
4. trade facilitation

To a greater or lesser degree, because of differences between the US and the EU, these were rejected, except the issues on trade facilitation, which further the victory of developing country members of the organisation.

The interim between Singapore to the next and second round of trade negotiations i.e. Seattle 1999 did not come easy. The trade talks did not bring any positive result. Instead more polarisation in the multilateral trading system began to appear. The traditional divide between US and EU became sharper on agricultural and the Singapore issues. On the other hand the EU, US, Japan and major agricultural exporting countries (Argentina; Australia; Bolivia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; Costa Rica; Columbia; Guatemala; Indonesia; Malaysia; New Zealand; Pakistan; Paraguay; The Philippine; South Africa; Thailand; and Uruguay) were divided on issues of export subsidies and import restrictions on agricultural products. Furthermore, the increasing importance of newly industrialised countries in South-East Asia and the rapidly developing economies of Brazil; Russia; India; and China; looks as the international trading system becomes increasingly multi-polar (EU, 2007:2).

It is obvious that these differences made the WTO multilateral trade system dictatorial and intolerant to the interest of member countries from the developing world. In reality, the WTO-Regime became more as an appendage of the USA, regulating the global multilateral trade system for corporate interest of USA.

Thus, the seattle 1999 was conducted most undemocratically in order to push for unfavourable trade agreements on the controversial URA issues. The global civil society groups had earlier intercepted a document by EU on multilateral Agreement on investment which contained provisions of re-colonisation of the former colonial countries. On market access to the developed world the US insisted that it is conditional on observation of international labour standards. On URAA both EU and US refused to shift from their positions.

The scenario of the summit became tense. The developing member countries were not ready to enter into any trade agreement. Meanwhile civil society organisations from all over the world had already gathered to oppose and disrupt the conference. A combination of anti-WTO forces, of violent street protests and the reluctance of developing countries to accept US and EU bullying on agriculture, labour standards and investment protection made the summit to collapse. However, the failure did not seem to come as a result of violence but because the major players in the WTO power structure were short of becoming victorious in the trade negotiations.

The failure of the negotiations indicate that the WTO multilateral trade regime is in crisis and for the first time it shows that the developing countries would not easily accept the EU-US dominated trading system.

The Doha Development Agenda: Spring-Board of the WTO-Trade Regime Crisis
The seattle 1999 did not achieve anything. Contradictions and divisions between the rich and poor country members of the WTO continued to deepen. On the other hand divisions are taking another turn between the rich nations.

At the level of global relationships between the poor and rich countries, the globalisation of trade, finance and investment has raised several important questions related to globalisation and development of developing countries. One issue of immediate concern was the militarization of global economic system. The US of the George Bush Presidency became the “police of the world”. To conquer any country which has refused to pursue its economic and political interests.

It was in grappling with these problems that it became clearer that the developed countries wanted another round of trade negotiations, perhaps to soften their positions. They were worried that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 demanded fast promises for development of underdeveloped countries.

Here, it must be admitted that the industrialised countries were eager for another round of negotiations, but the developing countries were not. It is said that the latter group of countries were disturbed about the undemocratic process of the WTO-Regime, and the actual trade issues themselves. A media once reported that “African Trade Ministers and Civil Society Organisations were opposed to the new round because the WTO processes are being undemocratic and opaque, rather than transparent (Anup S. 2002:3). Other less developed countries like India vehemently resisted any new round of talks to discuss so-called “new issues” for the non-democratic nature of the whole process (ibid).

However, the weaker developing states were put under pressure by more, powerful nations to accept another round of trade negotiations. Thus, the fourth WTO Ministerial conference in Doha Qatar in November 2001. It was deceptively dubbed the “development” round to appease poor countries with a so-called agenda for “trade and development”

After rejection by the US of the provision of development for poor countries in the Havana Charter which established International Trade Organisation, the Doha Development Round is the first round of multilateral trade negotiations committed to treating development issues as a principle of international trade.

To the extent that if some theoretical perspectives on “trade and development” could be displayed, and if the “special and differential Treatment Principles” are not on URAA, one can easily say that the name “Development Round” is a misonomer as the Doha 2001 is concluded with unspecified promises aimed at rectifying the imbalance from the original “Uruguay Round” of multilateral negotiations that established the WTO.

These promises from the point of view of developing countries are the agreements on liberalisation of Agriculture and Services as well as on the Trade-Related intellectual property. But both the EU and US have insisted that other issues should also make part of the agenda, including market access for non-agricultural products as well as the so-called “Singapore issues” referred above.

Consequently, the promise of development for underdeveloped members of the WTO did not change the perspective of the rich nations on the poor ones. Indeed, both in the consultations leading to the Doha Round, and in the outcomes of the summit, developing countries on the whole had actually been marginalised and ignored, once again (Anup S. 2006:4).

What is clear is that, contrary to the claims of most observers, media and trade representatives of developed countries, Doha did not launch a “development round”. The point is that the Doha 2001, in fact, contradicts the interest of the developing countries. They were coerced to attend. They attended and lost again.

While the developing countries had lost again, a broad coalition of 100 member countries grouped and put a battle for a minimum concession to agree to carry on with negotiations, especially on URAA and for a just WTO system. Thus, they succeeded in getting the summit to conclude with a position to continue with negotiations on the implementation of the controversial URA. This implementation clause which is still being pursued, and yet no shift of position is what is commonly called the “Doha Agenda”.

Implementation of Doha Agenda: A Crisis Rocking the WTO-Regime
The Doha Round was in 2001 but the negotiations are still taking place. Progress has been slow and protracted. Every multilateral trade negotiation is now based on Doha Agenda, yet there is no shift of position by the players. Two Minestrial Summits – Concun in 2003 and Hong Kong in 2005 had virtually collapsed because of failure to reach agreement on Doha “Development Agenda (Yusif M.M. 2008).

I have raised a question last year and I think it is appropriate to put it again. The question is: “Three years after Hong Kong the most powerful international organisation, managing and moving the current globalisation’ has gone to sleep and still not awake. What is happening” (ibid:08).

It is not necessary to make a lenthy comment on the obvious reality of the great global trade manager. Yet! It continues to exist but the failure to shift positions on the “Doha Development Agenda” makes it less active. As if it does not exist. In July, 2006, in a Geneva meeting, there was hope to conclude the Doha Round, yet it failed to reach an agreement about reducing farming subsides and lowering import taxes. The 2007 meeting at Potsdam and another at Geneva in July 2008 did not break the stalemate.

The failure of the negotiations, had made the future of the Doha Development Round and the WTO multilateral trade system more uncertain. All further trade negotiations were finally suspended after last ditch talks between the EU, US, India, Japan, Australia, and Brazil failed to reach a compromise on the issue of agriculture liberalisation.

However, in December 2008, the Director General of the WTO released another document of a package on the issue of agriculture liberalisation to be on negotiation between 13th – 18th at Geneva. This initiative is already being rejected by interest groups around the world. In Japan about 3,000 farmers across the country staged a rally on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 in Tokyo urging the Government not to make any compromise unfavourable for the country’s agriculture, if trade Ministers decide to meet in Geneva (Trade observatory: 12 2008:1). Similarly, a bipartisan group of 22 US lawmakers of the Senate observed, that a new negotiating text for a World Trade Organisation deal on agriculture contains substantial loopholes that would limit US access to foreign markets should be rejected (ibid:2).


In this context the impasse in the WTO multilateral trade system may likely take an extended period of time to be broken. From the point of view of US, any further trade negotiations may not be held until after President Barrack Obama constituted a new Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) of the White House. As it is observed that the TPA enables the White House to negotiate trade deals with a guarantee that the US congress will vote on these deals as a package without being able to make any amendments. Without TPA, every part of a deal would be scrutinised by congress, making any deal close to impossible (EU, 2007:4).

Finally, it is worthy to note that the failure of Doha Round negotiations is not strictly because of contracdictory development interests between the rich and the poor countries. On the other hand, inspite of the “Blair House Accord” between the US and EU, there is still disagreement between them over agriculture liberalisation. Moreso, the EU participated in the Doha Round negotiations with intention to challenge the position of the US in multilateral trade negotiations and to impose its own agenda of regulatory and non-trade issues i.e. the four Singapore issues”. On the other hand the developing countries too do not constitute a homogeneous bloc with indivisible common interest. Many alliances and coalitions were created around many issues. There is the G20 alliance formed around the issues of agricultural trade. There is also the G33. Members of the latter group which is formed in cancun are importers of agricultural products, many of them also single group producers and exporters. The G33 countries demand exceptions for certain products as full liberalisation could badly hurt their economies and populations (Yusif, M. M. 2008:5). There are other groups with different interests. The group of 4 i.e. G4, the strongest economies of the developing world are becoming powers that must be consulted on any controversial issue in multilateral trade negotiations.

Is there a way out?
In the present situation, there is no progress in sight on making, a deal on “Doha Development Round”. This problem is illustrated by series of negotiations, consultative meetings, experts advices, discussions at various national fora by interest groups, yet no serious solutions for getting out of the general impasse. In fact, there is no clear path to follow as every country and or group of countries have stood inflexible forever.

As there is increased broadening of the issues, and better understanding of their implications for further under-development of the developing countries, it is becoming more difficult to find a brake on the stalemate. From issues on cotton initiatives, agricultural subsidies, industrial goals, trade facilitation, services, intellectual property and public health, now the demands of the poor countries include also the conduct of WTO in taking decision, bureaucratisation of the WTO management of global trade and lack of transparency. Consequently, even if there is minimum understanding, the “safety safeguard mechanism” principle would forestall reaching a deal.

As far as ways out of the deadlock are concerned, prospects are not bright. Walden Bello, a global trade analyst once asked a question whether “the WTO would rise from death like Dracula”. He added that the collapse of the Doha negotiations and subsequently the death of the WTO is one of the best things to happen to the developing countries in a long while. This also coincides with the view of chossudousky who observed that “there can be no other alternative but to reject the WTO as an international institution, to imprint the WTO as an illegal organisation. In other words, the entire process must be rejected outright” (cited by Nick, B. 2000).

It is obvious that the developing countries, especially the poorest ones may not have any stake to continue with the negotiations. Among developed countries there are different levels of support. While the US, EU, UK, Japan, Italy, Germany and Canada have shown only low compliance with WTO secretariat to continue with the negotiations, France is not enthusiastic at all.

Nothing suggests that the developed countries have spoken against the WTO paradigm of global trade, but apparently they are building alternatives to WTO. Both US and EU are gradually moving from a policy that priorities multilateral trade negotiations to a policy focusing on bilateral and regional trade arrangements. In the United Sate of America, under the Bush Administration, this strategy became an official US trade policy. This is packaged as “competitive liberalisation that promotes trade liberalisation simultaneously on multiple fronts – bilaterally, regionally, multilaterally and plurilaterally.
Throughout the period of George Bush this concept of trade is translated into reality. US negotiated regional agreements with central American countries (CAFTA); Africa (AGOA); Latin America (FTAA); US Andean (FTA); then Free Trade Area agreement with Malaysia, South Korea and Thailand; and several others including a Middle-East and North African Free Trade Project, as well as with ASEAN. These are in addition to many bilateral agreements with Chile, Singapore Australia, Bahrain, etc. This is also the case with EU which is involved in many bilateral trade arrangements, while also in regional agreements with some groups e.g. ACP; MERCOSUR and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

An offensive to create trade blocs to promote free trade, but the ultimate goal is to capture and fortified areas of trade interests by the major powers in the event of trade war and protectionism. As the commerce secretary of the United State of America alluded in Fareed Zakaria programme in the CNN, the US is moving towards protectionism. He added, not next year, but in the next five to ten years (CNN, 12 2008).

The picture that emerges from all these is unequivocal. That there are two scenarios for the future of the WTO:
i) WTO would cease to exist or
ii) It would be reformed to become a really global common market monitor

The collapse of several Doha negotiation meetings (Cancun 2003; Geneva 2004, Paris 2005; Hong Kong 2005; Geneva 2006; Potsdam 2007; Geneva 2008); has made it that the WTO has become less effective and its rules are gradually becoming less useful for addressing global trade issues. As noted above the US and EU are already constructing alternatives to WTO multilateral trade regime.

Through this strategy, which continues to be displeasing the developing countries, both US and EU refused to be flexible on particularly agriculture liberalisation. One interest group in USA noted that for US agriculture may be better off without deal. Various other interest groups of small farmers and manufacturers are pressing the government of United State of America for further liberalisation of global trade in plurilateral way.

Whereas the EU wanted to make little concession to the poorest developing countries, by a trickish calculations of reducing domestic support to farmers, but in a trade-off to accept the “Singapore issues”.

In view of the above what would happen in case the US and EU take the extreme option to withdraw from the WTO structure? Another global trading system would evolve? Would it mean the WTO-regime may remain dead, never to rise up again like “Dracula” or what would really be the environment of global trade?

Nevertheless, unless the global power relations shifted from where it is, the withdrawal of US and EU from the WTO system may practically not necessarily going to be in the interest of the developing countries. In fact, this will represent no solution. The situation could lead to extreme competitive liberalisation and at the same time protectionism. The poor countries will be at the receiving end – armed – twisted, bullied and coerced by this or that rich country to be in trade relationship. Their products could be at the lowest price in the global market. The developed countries may revert to trade conflict of the early twentieth century which could bring global wars.

More precisely, a strategy aimed at reform of the WTO system may be more clearly beneficial for poor countries. After the collapse of many Doha Round negotiations, it looks that the WTO will not be able to continue in its present form. There has to be fundamental changes in order for it to meet the needs and interests of all its members, both from developed and developing countries.

The need of changes in the WTO will be followed by a question as what are the fundamental problems on which the question of reform hinges? These are some of them:
i) The power relationship and subsequently the power structure, is built on inequalities, both in the dynamics and objectives of the bureaucratic and policy processes of the WTO.
ii) That the concept of the WTO multilateral trade system is to establish, promote and consolidate the hegemony of US corporate interests in global trade.

There is no doubt that GATT was a reasonably framed organisation for liberalisation of global trade, but unlike the WTO was flexible and recognised the differential status of developing countries to allow them use trade policy for development and industrialisation. Following the Uruguay Round these are reversed in order to meet the interest of United State of America. The then US agriculture Secretary John Block expressed this feeling at the start of the Uruguay Round negotiations in 1996 when he said that “The idea that developing countries should feed themselves is an anarchronism from a bygone era. They could better ensure their food security by relying on US agricultural products, which are available in most cases in much lower cost” (Walden B. 2001:36). The developing countries must rely on US agriculture. Other interests, particularly of services, medicine, information technology, and generally all investment groups are being imposed on developing countries.

The crucial question is that what is it that would be reformed to bring justice and fair play in an organisation which is founded in principles and processes to produce and reproduce injustice for poor countries? How can the WTO really be reformed to serve the interests of the developing world? Is it not only by world revolution? Are the WTO philosophy, principles, and structure necessary for global trade?

There is one issue which is important to recall in the development of multilateral trade relations. That is that the birth of ITO and subsequently the GATT is a result of disruption of global trade. But it was not global chaos that gave birth to the WTO in 1995. It is borne to reshape the global trading system to market rules of the current globaslisation which has favoured the interests of US big corporations.

In the context of these developments what reform will bring justice and fairness to developing countries? Is it not better to revert to the original GATT system, principles and approach to international trade? Indeed, the GATT system was not defective to any one except to increasing corporate interests of United State of America to dominate the world.

Even if those US corporations are hungry to dominate world trade the old GATT provided level play ground to achieve their goal. Because:
i) The GATT principles include trade policies for development and industrialisation of developing countries. Therefore, there would be no need for any controversial Doha Development Agenda now destabilising the global trade system.
ii) The GATT trade – regime has dispute settlement mechanism which treated all parties as equal.
iii) And that the world trade expanded 17-fold between 1948 and 1997, from $124 billion dollars to $10,770 billion, largely without WTO

The apparent dominance of neo-liberalism would make some people to believe that the Keynesian assumptions of GATT would no longer be relevant and that the global trade must go beyond it to bring political and economic as well as ideological conditions of neo-liberalism in order to promote global trade.

The neoliberal political and or economic discourse and policy has to a large extent without division believes that neo-liberal society is an open and democratic society which promotes pluralism in governance of human affairs. In accordance to this a WTO regime is to be built in and with multiplicity of other organisations, groups and states to provide check and balance on its immense power in global trade. Thus, what developing countries should aim at as part of the agenda of reform or restructuring the WTO is by a combination of passive and active measures to radically reduce its power and make it simply another international institution co-existing with and being check by other international organisations and regional groups (Ibid:46). Then simultaneously, a reform would came to reorganise policy making process, with another WTO court of justice to rule over conflict, and may be a WTO parliament directly elected by member state citizens to share power with WTO General council which would be a major policy making body also with executive power.

Conclusion
The WTO multilateral trading system is seriously ill. It is born with a disease which has become incurable and has now carried it down. It is still alive but majority members of the organisation are helpless on what to do with it. The rich country members need it but are searching and building alternatives to abandon and allow it to die.

The scenario is very difficult. To allow it to die? The alternatives may not be of benefits to poorer actors in global trading system. To reorganise it by means of some reforms of its trade processes? But as global power relationship remains the developed member countries will remain the major players, to render any reform meaningless.

The possibility of continuing in this way, the developing countries using their majority to engage the developed ones for institutional reforms in the WTO, while at the same time building an independent agriculture by the conventional method while simultaneously forming independent trade blocs, to begin to become economic powers.

In the context of the current global financial crisis, of course there are dangers which may lead to continues disadvantages for developing countries, but this could also be made to spur alternative economic strategy and multilateral trade relationships by poor countries. The financial meltdown is already reinforcing the WTO-Agriculture crisis as there is now fast rising food prices which the developing countries are most affected. Returning to conventional agriculture or “appropriate agriculture” as Rane and Nicholas called it may be risky but its success is possible depending upon the political framework within which it is established.


References
1. Anup, S. (2002) WTO Meeting in Doha Qatar, 2001. Global Issues: Online publication
2. Anup, S. (2006). WTO Doha “Development” Trade Round Collapses, 2006 Global Issues. Online Publication
3. Bergstein C.F. (1997) Global Trade and American Politics. Peterson Institute. Online Publication
4. EU (2007). The debate of Doha. The end of the Nultilateral Trading System. Online
5. Fareed Zakaria (2008). CNN GPS 28-12-2008
6. Kanaga, R. (2005). Developing Countries call for “Reclaiming development in the Doha Negotiations. TWN info services. Online
7. MAP (2006). The agricultural trade developments of major WTO players No. 01-06
8. Martin, K. (n.d.). The new threats to Developing Countries and sustainability. TWN Briefings for WSS D No.13. Online
9. Martin, K. (2001). On the multilateral Trading System. TWN info services. Online
10. Nick, B. (2000). Marxist Internationalism Vs the perspective of radical protest. WSWS. News and Analysis.
11. Rene, D. and Nicholas C. (1980). The Growth of Hunger: A New Politics of Agriculture London. Morion and Boyers
12. Rishard E. M. (2000). Africa in the Global Economy. Colorado. Lynne Rienner
13. Trade Observatory 12 2008. Online
14. UNDP (2003). Making Global Trade Work for People London. Earthscan Publication
15. Walden, B. (2001). The Future in the balance: Essays on globalisation and resistance. California. Food First Books
16. Walden, B. (2008) Destroying African Agriculture. Online.


Annex A
The Subject Matter of WTO Mock Summit 2009
The fifth WTO Mock Summit 2009 is planned to hold in a day during the Second Week of May. It is tagged Brazil 2009. The fourth Summit is conceived on the situation of the WTO regime after Hong Kong, whose subject matter was defined as WTO after Hong Kong: Death or Survival”.

The performance tried to capture the various issues of disagreement between the developing and developed country members of the organisation. It was concluded in favour of the majority who rejected decision making by consensus, but by majority votes. The final position on which the meeting become dispersed on is a stalemate by trade minister of Nigeria who said “The power structure of the WTO has failed to facilitate development of developing country members of this organisation. Therefore all the trade agreements are deliberately and consciously framed to favour the developing countries. In view of this I hereby move a motion that the whole structure and processes of the WTO regime be immediately reviewed. Otherwise, we, from the developing world would not continue to participate in the trade body under the same rules and processes”.

The disagreements in the mock summit as in the real WTO system, is dominated by the controversy on agricultural trade. Other issues like Non-Agricultural Market Access, intellectual property and public health services, etc had all featured in the mock summit, but Agreement on Agriculture became the most contested.
The importance of agriculture for human development needs not be stressed. Hundreds of years ago Francois Quesnay, leader of the French Physiocrat School of economists noted that “commerce, like industry, is merely a branch of agriculture. It is agriculture which furnishes the material of industry and commerce and which pays both. A nation which has little trade in raw produce, and which is reduced to trade in industrial goods in order to subsist, is in a precarious and uncertain position…. Moreover, such a nation is always subject to and dependent upon those which sell it primary necessities (Caldwell, M. 1982:7)

It is clear that the physiciocrats must now be held vindicated by the struggle both between rich nations on the one hand and between rich and poor nations on the other hand to have control in global trade in agriculture. The WTO Agreement on Agriculture illustrates how the rivalry among the rich countries drives to more subordination of the developing to the developed countries.

Prior to the Uruguay Round, because of the United States threat in the 1950s to withdraw from GATT if it was not allowed to maintain protective mechanisms for milk and other agricultural products, the GATT gave that waiver to and at the same time led to agricultural trades exemption from GATT for fear of being accused of having double standards. This is the only waiver given but the US and the other rich countries also ignored the ban on subsidies by the GATT system.

The effect of these was a fast transformation of agriculture in these countries. For example, EU moved from being a net food importer into a net food exporter. The US too although had more relatively advance agriculture, became more sophisticated and modern.

The EU’s Economic Agricultural Policy, with a combination of price and sales guarantees, subsidies and other support measures that protected farmer’s incomes from market forces, European farmers expanded production. The mounting surpluses could only find markets through exports, and this create competition with the previously dominant subsidised US farmers for Third World Markets.

Competition for developing country markets become vicious. Each was trying to out compete the other. By the late 1980s, for instance, close to 80 percent of the EUs budget was going to support agricultural programmes. While the US came up with a program called Export Enhancement Program, to reconquer markets, such as the North African wheat Market from the EU.

While it was the threat of US that led to exemption of agricultural trade from GATT rules, it was US pressure that brought agriculture into the WTO system in 1995. The intention was to go back to free trade in agriculture in order to regulate a condition of monopolistic competition between the two superpowers. In reality, the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture was between US and EU, called the Blair House Accord 1992 and 1993, sold to other GATT-WTO members by the two superpowers in 1994 in what Walden Bello called on a “take-it-or-leave-it” basis. Indeed, all the other members from the South and not from the North ratified it by a coerced-consent.

The main key provisions/issues on the Agreement on Agriculture are:
1. Market Access issues. It was agreed to convert all non-tariff agricultural barriers to ordinary tarrifs in respect of all agricultural tariffs and to subject them to reductions.
2. Domestic support: All member countries are to reduce support on domestic agricultural policies which would deem to have the largest effect on production and market distortion
3. Export subsidy: It was agreed to reduce the volume and value of subsidized exports over a six year period by 21 and 36 percent respectively, and not expand subsidies beyond the level reached at the end of the six-year period.
4. The implementation of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytasanitary measures directly affects agriculture. The SPS imposed guidelines on the use of measures to protect human, animal and plant life and health from foreign pests, diseases and contaminants. These SPS rules are arbitrarily used as protective measures to deny agricultural exports from developing to developed countries.
5. Introduction of biotechnolology in agricultural production has given rise to new issues and disputes both between developed countries and as well as between the developed and developing countries.
6. Although only a few state trading enterprises could affect world trade, especially with accession of China the STE remains a controversial issue on the WTO agenda.
7. The TRIPS Agreement has become a threat to Third World agrarian communities because their traditional knowledge are being stolen by big corporations, patented and denied them to use it for their own development
8. Subsequently, such issues which could be challenged in WTO dispute settlement, the court procedure has been changed from the GATT and made practically impossible for developing countries to get justice.

The AOA is entirely a plot to undermine agricultural development of Third World countries. Of course, it does offer some concessions to the developing countries in the form of the lifting of quotas and some reduction in tariffs on developing country exports of commercial crops like palm oil and coconut oil. But these benefit few lobby groups such as Malaysian palm oil plantations, big cocoa and coffee export companies in Africa and Asia, as well as big sugar interests in the Caribbean. Nevertheless, the vast majority of unorganised small farmers producing rice, corn, and other food crops, not only are not favoured by this concession but are hurt. Liberalisation of agricultural trade has made them to lose their incomes, farms and even health. They are abandoned to die because of free trade.


Less than five years after the URAA, the developing countries poured out their anger that they cannot go with AOA. While both EU and US are opposed to changes. The collapse of the agricultural negotiations in seattle in 1999, Walden Bello observed is the best example of how the stalemate on AOA has started. (Ibid 2001:43). Conjoining with other issues to cause the collapse of the second ministerial summit of the WTO.

Based on the above, it is important to stress that the failure of many negotiations and consultative meetings on Doha Development Round has been, especially because of AOA.

Reform of the WTO multilateral trade regime is very difficult. In the present complex relations of interests and domination, an alternative multilateral system may not be at advantage of the developing countries. To allow it die? Whatever would come out may be preceded by global chaos, conflicts and disorder. Therefore, in the fifth WTO mock summit – dubbed Brazil 2009 – we have to be extraordinarily more creative to swim through these various paradigms to defend the interests of the developing countries, while at the same time the WTO-regime continues.


Annex B
Major players/Actors in Negotiations on AOA
Major Traders Major Exporters
1. EU 1. Brazil
2. US 2. Australia
3. Canada 3. Argentina
4. China 4. New Zealand
5. India 5. Costa Rica

Major Importers Others
1. Japan 1. Mexico
2. Korea 2. Indonesia
3. Russia 3. Malaysia
4. Hong Kong 4. South Africa

Others with important impact to note
1. Philippine 9. Venezuela
2. Cuba 10. Pakistan
3. Turkey 11. Bolivia
4. Nigeria 12. Chile
5. Kenya 13. Columbia
6. Zimbabwe 14. Guatemala
7. Paraguay 15. Uruguay

The above are major WTO players in agricultural trade issues. We will select about 20 including the majors of the majors i.e. EU; US; India; China; Brazil; South Africa; Canada; Argentina and Malaysia to get ministerial representation in the mock summit. The specific and official position of each would be investigated for presentation in the summit.
Annex C
Preparation for the Mock Summit
 Roles would be assigned within the first five weeks of the New Academic Session i.e. 2008/2009
 Immediately the participants would be advised to start an independent research on the position of the country to represent.
 Five weeks to the performance training will kick-off by the Director delivering a lecture on the issues on Agricultural Trade confronting the WTO
 All the participants are expected to attend. Those who do not would be droped there.
 After the lecture all the participants will be divided into working groups each to be headed by one of them.
 The topics of the working groups would be: History of GATT-WTO; Agreement on Agriculture; market access; domestic support; export subsidy; SPS issues affecting agriculture; biotechnology on agricultural trade issue; TRIPS and agriculture; STE as an issue; agricultural issues in DSP; EU and US;
 The resource persons as chairmen of the working groups are: Abdullahi Muawiyah; Riyauddeen Zubairu; Sani Sabiu; Yusif Koroka; Lawi Isa Abdullahi; Musa Yahaya Yusif; Sani Garba Wakili; Abdullahi Shehu Yusif; Faiza Tukur Pate; Abba A. Talba; Mustapha Mukhtar; Babangida Salihu;
 Each working group will present the issues in the larger house for discussion.
 Following the working group discussions the actors will be given one week to do further research and submit a short report on the issues to be presented during the summit
 Finally, there will be a rehearsal of two weeks. Then the mock summit will be staged.



Annex D
The Working Groups
1. The history of GATT-WTO
Chairman: Lawi Isa Abduallhi
2. Agreement on Agriculture
Chairman: Babangida Salihu
3. Market Access Issues
Chairman: Abba A. Talba
4. Domestic Support Issues
Chairman: Sani Garba Wakili
5. Export Subsidy
Chairman: Faiza Tukur Pate
6. SPS Issues Affecting Agriculture
Chairman: Abdullahi Muawuyah
7. Biotechnologyu as Agricultural Trade Issue
Charman: Mustapha Mukhtar
8. TRIPS and Agriculture
Chairman: Musa Yahaya Yusif
9. EU-WTO Agricultural Trade
Chairman: Riyyauddeen Zubairu Maitama
10. US-WTO Agricultural Trade
Chairman: Abdullahi Shehu Yusuf
11. State Trading Enterprises as an issue
Chariman: Sani Sabiu
12. Agricultural Issues in DSP
Chairman: Yusuf Koroka

Annex E
Media roles and Coverage
Every WTO summit performance has got a message to send towards understanding global economic and political as well as social relation. The first was to defect militarization of global trade in the current era of globalisation. The second and the third in 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 Academic sessions respectively tried to show the dominance and undemocratic management of the WTO system, especially by USA. The fourth performance, in 2007/2008 Academic year challenged the institution of WTO for being unfair and unjust to developing country members of the powerful body. The mock exercise reversed the “consensus” style in taking decision. And concluded that the WTO processes are put to favour the rich country members. The fifth summit is intended to review these processes and to repositioned the global trade body.

In order to understand the message of the performance it has to be communicated skillfully. I had once told my boys that the beauty, excitement and ability to carry the audience depend on what the media actors have creatively done to project the performance.

In the division of roles we have media men who reports the performance alive. We have accumulated experience on this. When we started we composed briefs on the main scenes from beginning to the end. We got an effective communicator, then a level II student, whom with a little training did it very well. The way it was reported alive to the audience made it the talk of Bayero University Campus. The following year, both the acts and the reporting was very fantastic such that the message spread outside University Campus to the city of Kano. Any group of educated people you see were talking about it. In 2006/2007, a little set back, but another one of us, also then a level II student picked the media role and equally did it very well. In the fourth mock summit we got three professional communicators from Departments of English and Mass Communication. They, with their professional values and training added many colours in the reporting which contributed to this one being of International Standard. In the fifth round in 2008/2009, we have to get similar participants from the same Departments.

This may avail us with possibilities for more innovations and improvement on the reporting. The most important things for media roles are:
1. To read all the necessary papers prepared for the performance
2. To understand the issues, subject-matter and the message intended to be put across
3. To know the names and other actors’ identities for the purpose of accurate reporting
4. To be able to add “media jokes” to the performance to be impressed by any one who sees it.
5. To introduce modern information technology facilities and if possible to televise it alive to be monitored outside the campus
6. To organise media chats with participants either before the mock summit commences or after or both
7. To encourage various student associations to cover the occasion and report in their newsletters and magazines
8. Finally to invite national media houses to cover the occasion.


Annex F
 By 9:00am the venue will be set
 Then the audience and invited guests will be coming and got seated
 While that is going on the delegates/participants too are coming around in their full regalia (hanging outside the venue)
 Meanwhile the media men are getting set with their instruments
 At appropriate time the BBC will start broadcasting news capturing that the WTO summit is now holding in Brazil.
 Then the media would be showing, see the Director General arriving with his crew etc
 These would be followed by delegates
 Then on the conference hall the Director General would be seen talking and making consultation, then he would announce that the minister of trade of Brazil will now take his seat as the chairman of the summit.
 By this time the agenda and some papers will be placed before the chairman
 The head of state of Brazil is arriving
 The Director General would now welcome the Head of State of Brazil and invite him to declare the conference open
 This is by making a speech.
 As soon as he finished and left with his entourage the chairman will start the agenda by calling the Director General to give opening remarks
 Then to be followed by speech of the chairman
 After the speech, the chairman would refer to the DG for report of committees. Then the reports would come one by one.
 After the reports the chairman will open the floor for comments by delegates-this would come by raising of hands and by the chairman recognizing one at a point.
 During the US trade representative speech, the demonstrators will come in and disrupt the summit, chanting slogan against WTO. However, the demonstrators will be blocked by having security men dispatched. The US trade representative will then continue
 It is always better that there are disagreements. So that by the time each has spoken, the situation becomes very tense
 Then the floor would be open again for some countries to make assertions which would still appear more controversial.
 Then going to the green room would be announced by the Chairman and who would go there with USA, EU, Canada; Japan and Director General to decide on the issue finally.
 Going to the green room would be vehemently opposed as undemocratic by delegates from developing countries
 The final declaration will be read
 Then the summit closes.


Annex G
Members of the Organising Committee
1. Sani Sabiu
2. Lawi Isa Abdullahi
3. Mustapha Mukhtar
4. Abdullahi Muawiyah
5. Sani Muhammad Kawuwa
6. Riyauddeen Zubairu Maitama
7. Yusuf Musa Yahaya
8. Abduallhi Shehu Yusif
9. Yusuf G. Koroka
10. Faiza Tukur Pate
11. Richard T.
12. Basiru Musa
13. Abdullahi Yusif
14. Auwalu Andulkadir Ja’en
15. Maryam Suleiman Yakub
16. Isa Mohammed

Terms of Reference
1. To take care of logistics towards staging a successful MOCK SUMMIT 2008/09
2. To facilitate distribution of all necessary materials about the summit
3. To disseminate the mission of the summit in and out of Bayero University Campus
4. To source funding for successful summit and other intended programmes
5. Any other assignment that may arise



Annex H
Members of the Secretariat of the Mock Summit
1. Sani Sabiu Chairman
2. Lawi Isa Abdullahi Director-General
3. Abdullahi Muawiyah Chairman, Commission on Implementation of SPS aspects affecting agriculture
4. Sani Grba Wakili Chairman on Domestic Support Issues
5. Faiza Tukur Pate Chairperson on Export Subsidy
6. Abba A. Talba Chairman on Market Access Issues
7. Musa Yahaya Yusif Chairman TRIPS and Agriculture Issues
8. Mustapha Mukhtar Chairman, Commission on Biotechnology as agricultural trade issue
9. Yusuf Koroka Chairman on Trade Dispute issues