GATT – WTO in Crisis: Is there Multilateral Trading System

WTO Mock Summit

Department of Political Science

Bayero University, Kano – Nigeria

 

 

 

 

 

Briefing paper No.3

 

 

 

GATT – WTO in Crisis: Is there Multilateral Trading System

 

 

 

 

By

 

 

 

M. M. Yusif – Director of the Mock Summit

 

 

April 2010

 

 

 

History is repeating itself. The Multilateral Trading System is in a fix. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) inaugurated in 1948 guided and monitored a liberal trade system, but systematically began to decline until all the liberal principles became overtaken by protectionism making the GATT regime an irrelevant institution of multilateral trading system.

 

Through the Kennedy and Tokyo Rounds of the regime it was conceived to revise it in order to save it from sudden death which could be disastrous to global trade relations.

 

Therefore, from 1986-1994 there were consultations and negotiations, the Uruguay Round which created GATT-WTO Regime. The WTO Regime is a review of the original GATT with additional 'build-in-issues' to capture the new needs of the world economy and multilateral trading system.

 

However, the forces that had caused a crash of the GATT Regime did not allow any longer time for GATT-WTO system. It has systematically declined too. The Doha Agenda to revive it is not allowed a space. The implication is as if there is no multilateral trading system.

 

The Decline of GATT System

Since the early 1970s the major actors of the GATT multilateral trade system, though confirmed their loyalty and commitment to the rules and principles of the GATT international trade system, but they weakened the rules by allowing exceptions deliberately to favour them in the system.

 

Consequently, confidence in the system had declined and combined with a series of economic crises in the late 1960s which culminated in the breakdown in 1971 of the IMF system of fixed rates of exchange between the major currencies, the GATT international trade order became gravely shaken and virtually dead, not rise again as original GATT system.

 

These chains of economic crisis was a pointer to fundamental structural changes in national economic settings of the major players in international economic order which drew the agenda of series of global changes, economically, politically, socially and technologically.

 

To talk about the nature of these changes in a nutshell, it is interesting to note that, first in United State of America, then in United Kingdom, followed by other countries in Europe, was valorization of capital into bigger monopolies and corporate concerns whose survival needed more expansionism and highly competitive and market supported policies globally. Reagan and Thatcher in USA and UK respectively emerged in the late 1970s through the early 1980s to create this support for the growing big capital.

 

Concerning trade policy and measures the 1970s GATT system experienced "Double Movement" of "old" and "New" forces and policies each wanted to be in control. To be more precise, the situation may be seen as making up of:

1. USA global trade control was on decline while it was systematically fashioning competitive trade policy to regain control.
   
2. As the governments of developed countries were facing increasing pressures to provide public assistance through protection or subsidies or both, this is provoking conflict with other countries.
   
3. As a result of growing competitors especially from Japan and the more advanced of the developing countries, came responses in growth of sectoralism and bilateralism in international trade. This shows a lack of confidence on the GATT global economic order. "By sectoralism is meant the tendency to develop policies specific to a troubled sector of industry, usually including the one element on which all producer interest on the sector can agree, namely protection against imports" (Amnuay V. 1987:59). And bilateralism is a country by country agreement, mostly informally, out of a desire to minimize the effects of protection on the international trading system as a whole and out of desire, also, to evade GATT disciplines" (emphasis mine) (ibid).
   
4. As a result of this development, by the end of 1970s there was increasing trade restrictions in what supposed to be a liberal and free trade system. Thus everywhere in developed countries attention was directed on the need to improve economic incentives and reduce the extent of government intervention in the workings of the economy.
   

 

The trend revealed that a deterioration in the GATT system is mounting. The evidence of the crisis of GATT was compounded by failure to agree on the set of rules governing trade relations under the system. After a vote of no confidence by the congress of USA, on international trade organization (ITO), the GATT incorporated ITO charter, as an instrument for regulating the institutional environment of international trade.

 

Its basic regulatory functions as is contained in the preamble, are "the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international commerce". This implies that the GATT seems to be based on liberal and competitive principles which can establish market practice mechanism in international trade.

 

The GATT system of rules is based on liberal economic principles, but it does not prescribe free trade per se. In short, it is not against protection. It only insist on stable levels of protection among the member countries. So, here lies the contradiction which set the disagreements over GATT rules and legal system. Most noticeable on this direction, the United States, the hegemonic power of the era, with its relative decline had been decreasingly willing to obey the rules of GATT. Instead it was vigorously promoting bilateral and plurilateral trade relations as alternative to GATT system.

 

However, the dying GATT economic order did not become dead for quite long time because the new free trade forces were not matured enough to takeover. In both the sixth and the seventh round of trade negotiations in Kennedy (1968) and Tokyo (1979), the old system strived to live by reviewing regulations on anti-dumping, non-tariff measures, subsidy, textiles and clothing trade, etc. in order to bring back confidence on the system. Furthermore, in order to ascertain implementation of these new measures, since Tokyo Round negotiations, achieving and maintaining transparency in the way trade policy is conducted increased. The GATT already contains a provision on transparency. Article X states that 'laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rules of general application …pertaining to requirement, restrictions and prohibitions on import or export …shall be published promptly in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them'.

 

The need for transparency in the conduct of trade policy called for the GATT system to institutionalize international surveillance both internationally and of the domestic economic affairs of member countries with a view to make regular reviews of the policies of individual countries.

 

From the Tokyo Round, the police tactics refused to work to save the international trade system. Hence, there was a need of a New Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations.

 

The deterioration of the international trade system, though is serious, however, just because it is insidious has not collapsed or broken down or created any obvious crisis as it did in the 1930s. But its dynamism was gradually disappearing reading as if it did not exist because:

1. There was widespread revival of discrimination manifested by (a) quantitative restrictions on imports into western Europe by USA of particularly labour-intensive products such as textiles and clothing (b) the formations of free trade areas as preferential trade arrangements to trade as alternative to GATT system (c) the establishment of European community in a sense came with this motive because it started on a series of preferential arrangements with selected developing countries(d) with emerging successful developing countries it became clear that discrimination against them and the fast growing Japan escalated
   
2. Especially after the Kennedy Round of Negotiations in the 1960s there was rising use of protectionist measures of tariff and non-tariff barriers which made the provisions made by GATT progressively more irrelevant.
   
3. Because of the growing irrelevance of GATT, bilateral trade relations got a boom thereby making the GATT system as if did not exist.
   
4. Another major factor in the weakening of the GATT system has been the abandonment of the principles of the market economy in the domestic policies of the major trading countries. The normal order of a free market economy, allowing firms to compete with one another is that there should not be any government intervention. As government intervention in the form of whatever kind of subsidy and or domestic support would distort the market. But during this critical period of the GATT system subsidies and other countervailing duties were the case in USA and European countries. However, in USA for example, the issue of subsidy became a subject of conflict with emerging internationalists in Washington who thought that the conflict should be resolved by relaxing the law of the United States as a step towards a New GATT code on subsidies and countervailing duties. In the Tokyo Round of negotiations there was compromise between the two forces of Washington to prohibit export subsidies, except on certain primary commodities, while other subsidies were specifically accepted as important instruments for the promotion of social and economic policy objective.
   
5. Agricultural trade is another controversial issue which eluded the normal discipline of the multilateral trading system under the GATT Regime. The trouble started when inspite of the rules governing multilateral trading system in agricultural products, the United States, obtained a waiver of GATT rules in order to get around the conflict between the GATT rules which prohibited quantitative restrictions in trade and section 22 of United States Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 which allows the government of USA to impose import restrictions on agricultural products. This means that right from the beginning of GATT, one of the most important members moved to exempt certain parts of its agriculture from the general rules of multilateral trade. This triggered general disrespect of the GATT's principles and rules with respect to agriculture. For example, there was the absence of any significant restraint upon export subsidies, as both the United States, as well as certain other countries, refused to agree for an absolute prohibition against export subsidies. Furthermore, because of pressures on the system temperate zone agricultural products had to be treated as a special case which had effectively put them outside the rules and process of trade liberalization. With formation of common Agricultural Policy (CAP), there came more discontent for all agricultural trade actors both from developed and developing countries as all sort of distortions are seen very clearly. For the EU in particular, in order to survive in the system, then and in future had to rival USA very seriously.
   
6. The growing strength of the developing countries, with emergence of group of 77 made it for them easier to obtain privileges in their favour, and yet developed countries continued to discriminate against them. This is because in their relations with the Third World, developed countries:
   
   1. Have retained relatively high tariffs on goods of export interest to developing countries;
      
   2. Have failed to eliminate, so-called 'residual' quantitative import restrictions on many developing-country products
      
   3. Have entered into bilateral and pluritateral agreements with some developing countries which restricted the exports of particular products of some developing countries to developed-country market.
      

 

Viewed from the perspective of GATT, that the international trade order is founded on liberal, market competitive system whose fundamental article of promulgation is the principle of non-discrimination, on the contrary the problems mentioned above have only succeeded in building support for anti-competitive policies, which ultimately spread, throughout the world economy.

 

The GATT Regime became in disarray such that there are two critical questions to ask. One of the questions is that at that moment of the history of GATT system was there a trading system? Yes! There were trade relations but hardly any rules accepted that governed multilateral trading system. So, there was definitely a need for a new GATT round of negotiations to review the system. This carries us to the second question. The question is not whether agreements will be reached but whether the overall results will enable the adjustment process of the market to work more efficiently to bring about sustained and widespread growth and development in the world economy.

 

Multilateral trade interests and organizations always look for three points which should be borne in mind in searching for solutions to GATTs problems in international trade.

 

1. First, if there is going to be an efficient and sustainable international trading system, the only possible basis is the principle of non-discrimination
   
2. Secondly, because of protectionism and possible trade conflicts, member countries must be ready to give up some of their sovereign powers to accept multilateral surveillance of their trade practices.
   
3. Finally, it is necessary for all member countries and their peoples that trade liberalization is an essential element for recovery of the world economy in general and multilateral trade in particular.
   

 

From GATT to WTO: What is the Difference

The GATT system carried along the fundamental provisions of Havana Charter for international trade i.e. the principles of non-discrimination and liberalization in global trade. But these principles gradually disappeared from the GATT system and the forces that made them so are longstanding and deep-seated.

 

Thus, are posed two contradictory dilemmas. One is that because of the presence of the same interests which made GATT what it had become, how would the new international trading system going to be different. On the other hand what sort of international trading system will there be if present trends continue even for another decade or so?

 

It may then be observed that negotiations for a new GATT is going to be a difficult task. The exercise already started in piecemeal way in the Tokyo Round negotiations when different types of non-tariff measures were agreed. But the trouble with piecemeal approach is that it may be defined by what major trading powers preferred and that could possibly produce many set of norms and rules for a working international trading system other than those of the GATT.

 

In reality negotiations in the new GATT Round must focus on the system as a whole as well as on specific issues. Furthermore, it is very important to keep in mind that short of the GATT system breaking down altogether, there can be no starting a fresh on a new GATT. Instead it is a question, then of reviewing the norms, rules and procedures of the GATT as it stands with a view to amending or elaborating particular provisions.

 

That is what happened and gave rise to GATT-WTO. As GATT came in with many provisions of ITO so the WTO is simply GATT with some changes and amendments of GATT norms, rules and principles.

 

After many years of preparatory work which was conduced in 1985, real negotiations for anew GATT started in 1986 and ended in December, 1994. This became the eight GATT Round. The Uruguay Round which came out with amended GATT, now called GATT-WTO.

 

The agenda for the new GATT round is defined in terms of the fundamental issues which caused virtual disintegration of the GATT system. However, priority has to be given to the changing needs of the international trading system. Accordingly, all those issues mentioned above came into the framework of negotiations and new ones to meet the new needs of the system.

 

These new elements in the negotiation are:

1. Expanding the scope of the GATT;
   
2. The issues of trade, finance and the international trading system; and
   
3. Enforcement of the rules of the international trading system
   

 

The increased scope of the GATT included trade in agricultural products, trade in services and others beyond trade as intellectual property rights as well as trade-related investment issues. Although trade in agricultural products is covered by the GATT, but up to through seven the GATT rounds, the process of trade liberalization has hardly touched the agricultural sector of the world economy. Moreso, the agricultural trade became the most dangerous issue for the GATT system which nearly carried it to the grave. As during that period, in the industrialized countries, public assistance to agricultural producers through protection and subsidies, inspite of everything, refused to be compromised and has been increasing. The agreement on agriculture (AOA) of the eight round (Uruguay Round) of the GATT negotiation in principle reversed the past trend by liberalizing agricultural trade. Structural transformation of the world economy has produced giant corporate interests in services such as New Information Technology services, Banks and other financial institutions, etc. who need a higher degree of liberalism to be able to move fast with their businesses. Nevertheless, they needed multilateral negotiations to regulate national treatment and dispute settlement. Thus, an agreement was reached called General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATTs). Then on Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), there is long list of complaints of not regulating and adequate enforcement of property rights. Medicine multinational corporations in USA in particular are disturbed with independent scientific investigation results on treatment of health or ill-health, coming from developing countries. But the monitoring and regulation of such are not covered in the GATT. These interests had worked to compile a global document for the new GATT negotiation and have succeeded to negotiate agreement called Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Trade-related Investment issues removed all national restrictions on foreign direct investments, as these are considered as distortions in trade which are similar to those brought by subsidization. Although the provisions of the agreement on investment received global protests from civil society organizations for introducing recolonisation agenda, yet it came and stay as Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs).

 

On the relationship between the Bretton Woods institutions (GATT; IMF; WB), because of the disintegration of the World's Monetary System, in the 1930s which affected trade and finance, it became necessary that in the new GATT system the three institutions must coordinate their activities. So it becomes that in the Uruguay GATT round that their principles, objectives and roles are the same to achieve the same purpose i.e. liberalization of world economy. In case of difficulties face by one regarding national acceptability, each could be a proxy of the other.

 

Trade observers noted that the deterioration of GATT system is because of lack of effective supervision and enforcement of the trade rules and regulations. The original GATT has two methods of enforcement. One is by retaliation and the other by a process of dispute settlement. Neither of them has been entirely ineffective but have become political weapons used by major powers to achieve their objective in global trade.

 

The negotiations and the signing of the agreements took eight years (1986 – 1994) and in January, 1995 a New GATT renamed GATT-WTO was delivered. Many will think that a restoration of basic GATT norms, rules and principles for generalized liberalization of trade and for a return to untramelled competition has become a reality. The question now is whether there is really trade liberalization under the GATT-WTO as envisaged by the forces and interests who negotiated for a new GATT system.

 

One Step Forward Two Steps Backward: The Drift Continues

There are very few major actors who played an active role and presented volumes of research papers as their positions for negotiations. The European Union and United States played a very decisive internal and external control of the process such that many commentators argued that the Uruguay Round negotiations and agreements is between EU and USA.

 

Only a scanty evidence shows the participation of developing countries. This is what is called a "Brazilian Initiative" supported by developing countries which resulted in a negotiating group being established to discuss issues relating to the framework for the conduct of international trade. Four framework agreements were reached: (i) the decision on differential and more favourable treatment, reciprocity and the fuller participation of developing countries in the GATT system; (ii) the declaration on trade measure, for balance of payments purposes; (iii) the decision on safeguard action for development purposes; and (iv) the understanding on the notification, consultation, dispute settlement and surveillance provisions of the GATT (Amuay V. op. cit p128). Nevertheless, international trade monitors observed that countries from the developing world were invited and given Uruguay Round Document of Agreements, of over 500 pages to sign and they endorsed it without knowing the content, provisions and their commitment.

 

It is apparent that the Uruguay negotiations laid the foundations which revealed lack of commitment and trust by and between the major trade actors to build and sustained liberalization of global trade. Less than five years after the Uruguay Round at the Singapore Ministerial Conference in 1997 conflicts broke out among the rich industrialized countries over what is called the Singapore issues. These issues, four of them (investment, competition, transparency in government procurement, trade facilitation) proposed for agreements, for tactical reasons did not get the immediate support of United States. Because of differences between the US and EU, these issues were rejected, except on trade facilitation to entice developing country members of the GATT-WTO.

 

Between the Singapore Minesterial Conference in 1997 to the Third Round of trade negotiations in 1999 at Seattle more differences and divisions were consolidated. The conflict between EU and US became sharper on agriculture. Then between all the industrialized countries on the one hand and developing countries on the other over trade and development issues. Also between the emerging economies and the poorest of the poor of the developing countries.

 

Another dimension in these conflicts and divisions is that for developing countries the issue becomes not just international trade but also development policy. As new issues that are being introduced under the WTO regime such as trips, labour standard, environmental aspects like energy, natural resources scarcity or climate change, services, education and training, etc. are critical for development of the new economies, but have to be rejected by the majority of the developing countries as against their development.

 

These accumulation of discontents from across the globe led to violent disruption of Seattle Round of negotiations in 1999. This is not only a failure of the trade round but also of the liberalization negotiations.

 

For the US, the EU and the WTO, the collapse of the Seattle Round was a disaster. But for developing countries the outcome was a relief. Martin Khor (1999) observed that "the seeds of discord were sown in Geneva in the weeks before Seattle". Developing countries voiced disappointment that five years after the WTOs creation they had not seen promised benefits. They put forward dozens of proposals, including changing some of the rules. Most their demands were dismissed. The major economies pushed instead their own proposals to further empower the WTO by introducing new areas such as investment, government procurement, competition, and labour and environmental standards".

 

Bringing Liberalization and Development: The Doha Round

Critical observers have already noted that 'the international trading system under the WTO regime is inequitable, untransparent and in conflict with national and international regimes that promote high environment and development standards'. So, it is not surprising that the Seattle Round collapsed. The Seattle affair indicated that either a death poison is injected into the powerful organization, or it revealed the need of an opening to a progressive reforms for liberalization and development in multilateral trading system.

 

The latter option was preferred and in order to give confidence to developing countries the EU eliminated some non-tariff barriers to some countries. There was call to continue with negotiations in 2000, but was delayed to normal Third Minesterial conference in Doha, Qatar in 2001.

 

Although the multilateral trading system was seriously wounded, but a new round was agreed in 2001 for two principal reasons (Mark H. 2005:1).

1. After the failure in Seattle, another rift could have seriously damaged the multilateral regime, which might then become eclipsed by regional and bilateral trade agreements;
   
2. After the September 11 attacks, the world badly needed peace in international cooperation, especially with Arab World; and with developing countries on: agriculture; services; trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights; non-agricultural market access; WTO rules; implementation related issues; etc.
   

 

Trade Rounds always take longer than expected, and is always painfully slow and protracted. It is not unusual to suspect round for years and then continue. Uruguay Round started in 1986 and was not concluded until 1994. It was ever suspended for one year.

 

The Doha Round started in 2001 and still is not concluded. There are many obstacles along the way. In 2003 Ministerial Conference in Cancun the negotiations broke down as if will never continue again. In response to that crisis in July 2004 the issues were reduced and the Doha work programme redefined. As a result of this the negotiation objectives became as:

1. Dismantling of trade distorting agricultural subsidies and the opening up of agricultural market for developing countries
   
2. Reduction of duties on goods and enhanced market access for non-agricultural products (NAMA).
   
3. Creation of trade facilitation measures by dismantling bureaucracy in customs procedures.
   
4. Reform of the dispute settlement mechanism
   

 

There was already understanding to continue negotiations on agriculture and services.

Notwithstanding, developing countries could only be encouraged to participate by means of significant promises in the area of development. That is why the WTO labeled the new negotiations "The Doha Development Agenda" (ibid:2).

 

Nevertheless, the Doha meeting looked suspicious. There was no show of trust between the various interests in the organization. Most critical of these is that the major trade players wanted agreements on new issues while all the developing countries insisted that the lapses in the Uruguay Round issues must first be resolved. There was a deadlock on how to move forward. The outcome is that the meeting closed with a view that all the Uruguay issues would have to be negotiated in the perspective of trade for development of developing countries. That is how Doha Development Agenda is borne. A difficult birth like of an "unsettled pregnancy enduced to deliver".

 

The Doha Round issues means going back to the Uruguay round for review. The most critical ones which fundamentally would affect development are:

1. Trips review to guarantee public health and access to medicines and biological diversity.
   
2. Opening up of the services market in member states by removal of barriers to cross-border trade in services and in the movement of personnel
   
3. Then finally to improve rules governing trade defense instruments such as anti-dumping agreement, transparency and elimination of subsidies.
   

 

In addition to these objectives as liberalization measures, development issues are also set down with the intent of benefiting the least developed countries. These are:

1. Expansion of the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund beyond the regular WTO budget for technical support for least developed countries.
   
2. Special and Differential treatment for developing countries, e.g. through duty free and quota free market access for all products from these countries
   
3. Strengthening of trade-related development cooperation i.e. Aid for Trade, by supporting trade-related supply intra-structure in developing countries.
   

 

By mid-2005 there was no hope of making a deal. The major actors were reluctant, probably because of the internal dynamics or changes which needs adjustment in their economies. And there is no understating between them about agriculture. At Hong Kong Ministerial conference in December, 2005 there was no deal too. It just ended like a public relations forum showing willingness to continue with the Doha Round negotiations.

 

Slow progress from 2006 through 2007 but negotiations was suspended, perhaps as result of 2008 financial meltdown. Thus, the negotiation became a victim of US and European protectionism and a rapid growth in bilateral, plurilateral and regional trade arrangements as a result the financial crisis. This trend is repeating itself as very bad for multilateral trade regime.

 

Far from giving up, in order not to degenerate to 1930s experience, liberalization of trade is a light to foster economic recovery. Infact a Doha agreement may help to cure the problems caused by the financial crisis. But the differences are still wide to open negotiations. In July, 2009 member countries met to reiterate their interests toward Doha Round, yet ended in stalemate. However, two months later 35 countries representing the interests of G33; Cains Group; NAMA II met in Delhi to further insist on the need to continue with Doha Round. The Delhi meeting was intended to narrow the differences and map out a plan for further negotiations based on Doha Agenda, in order to move the multilateral system forward. Again, a Ministerial conference in Geneva, 30 November – 2 December 2009 shows the importance of the need to continue with Doha Round negotiations. The chairman of the General Council Mr. Mario Matus noted in his address to the conference that "The WTO has proved its worth in the crisis of the past year, by monitoring measures taken in response to the crisis and advising against the adoption of protectionist measures. And it will continue to do so in aiding the recovery from the crisis, but it needs the active support of all its members. As has already been said, the most immediate way in which this can be demonstrated is by finalizing the Doha Round".

 

The question still remains after nine years when will the Doha Round be finalized? Where are we now? Before the 2009 efforts many had already proclaimed it dead. No! in 2009 it had come up like a "Dracula" but had it not lapsed quickly into coma? The differences are too diverse and perhaps irreconcilable such that as the General Director of the WTO observed in 2008, there is "need to move into a more intensive mode of consultations including smaller configurations". And even if there is going to be a deal what everybody wants isn't going to happen, and that we will go with what we can get is likely going to happen.

 

Inspite that a successful conclusion is uncertain yet it is desirable for progress of the world economy. No one, even the multinational corporate interests will benefit from a repeat of experience of the 1930s.

 

 

A Final Note: Is there Still a Multilateral Trading System

An overview of the latest International Trading System will reveal only the Uruguay Round and the Doha objectives. But the Uruguay Round is very close to death. The Doha is its medicine but there is no agreement to apply it.

 

The consequences of this is as if there is no multilateral trading system. The MTS has two governing principles which are embedded in WTO regime. These are:

1. Liberalisation of Trade
   
2. Rules and Regulations to govern the global trade system
   

 

The history of Free Trade, first in Europe in the 17^th century, through the 19^th century experiment when the world economy has become a single process, then of the adjustment of the American economy after 1945 as well as economies of western Europe after 1947, shows that trade liberalization is never realistic. Free Trade policies during these periods were combined with protectionist measures to protect the welfare of the people and guide the development of the economy to a calculated course.

 

Why should a modern multilateral system with orientation of a free and liberal trade system would not be the same. The ITO which contained liberal principles of trade was rejected by the congress of USA because it came with provisions which would have had facilitated rapid development of backward countries. The GATT which is a handwork of powerful business interests in the USA with all its liberal trade principles deteriorated and lost its importance because of resurgence of discriminatory trade practices. The Uruguay Round was conceived to correct these ills but while the GATT worked for at least two decades the GATT-WTO of the Uruguay Round began to degenerate before the delegates of the Round returned home.

 

This is complicated by the reality of the trade relations and processes that as the original GATT found itself, the GATT-WTO, also an agreement with rules and norms of behaviour as well as basic principles which guides the processes of international market economy, now appear not accepted until they are reviewed. And yet there is no hope they would be reviewed.

 

As we are heading towards the end of the game, where is the multilateral trading system? MTS with development is no where to be found. Given the history of GATT system, even after Doha it is doubtful whether in the prevailing global power relations, development can be seen to be carried by developing countries. In the final note to drop, there is international trade relations but not a multilateral trading system. Perhaps, the only hope is when the GATT-WTO is dead and buried, then another MTS could be delivered.

 

References

1. Amuay, V. and others (1987). Trade Routes to sustained Economic Growth. Macmillan Press. United Nations
   
2. Ashok, B. S. (2009). Delhi Ministerial agree to receive WTO talks. News Report
   
3. Gresser, E. D. (2009). More Growth, less Gridlock: Toward a new Trade Agenda. The New Democratic Leadership Council
   
4. John, M. (2001) Hungry for Trade: How the poor pay for free Trade. Zed Books, London
   
5. Martin Khor, International Herald Tribune, 21 December, 1999
   
6. Shamus Cooke, The WTOs Last Gasp? Socialist Appeal, August 2008
   
7. WTO Ministerial 2001: Doha Ministerial Declaration.
   
8. WTO Ministerial Conference 2005. Doha Work Programme: Draft Ministerial Declaration
   
9. WTO, Address by H. E. Mr. Mario Matus Chairman of the General Council. Ministerial Conference Geneva 30 November – 2 December 2009
   

 

The Subject Matter of WTO Mock Summit 2010

The WTO-Mock Summit Group of Bayero University, Kano-Nigeria made it a great responsibility that since the year 2005 the mock summit holds every academic session. The 2010 performance is going to be the sixth Mock Summit Session we are going to stage. In consultation with members of the Group 2010 and in order to prepare very well, the summit will hold during the second-half of the second semester 2009/2010 academic year.

 

The mock ministerial conference 2009, after agreements and disagreements, including divisions for close-door discussions by some interest groups, on critical issues pertaining agricultural trade, the meeting ended in a deadlock. But with some unacceptable propositions and resolutions pushed, by majority members from the developing world. These propositions are:

1. That the decision-making process and bureaucracy which govern the management of global multilateral by the WTO regime must be reviewed to accommodate the interests of countries from the developing world.
   
2. That agricultural trade must be taken out from the market system governed by the GATT-WTO regime or on the other hand USA and EU must fully liberalized agricultural trade.
   

 

The reality is nit that the developing countries have won the battle, but that while the settlement still remains, and are in most unfavourable link in the relationship, yet is an indication that they are more powerful today than in 1994 when the WTO regime is created.

 

Although the multilateral trading system under the GATT-WTO regime is in crisis, yet it is not ripe to get rid of it to do it alone. This will certainly result in protectionism and other unilateral trade policies which may lead to conflict, war and violence. The developing countries may become another subjects of violent conquests and may be recolonisation.

 

Let us assume that Doha Development Agenda can still be tackled. The 2010 WTO Mock Summit is going to be a consultative ministerial forum with hope of bridging the gap to facilitate acceptable review and implementation of Doha Development Agenda. In order to give appropriate and clear direction the theme is "The WTO Doha Round, the Current Economic Crisis and Problems for Multilateral Trading System: Which way Forward"

 

The procedure of the meeting is as usual except that the chairman of this meeting is the Chairman of WTO's General Council. This council is the Second Highest level structure of decision-making and administration of GATT-WTO regime. Since the Ministerial Conference meets every two years the General Council could be said to be the WTO's highest decision-making body. It is in Geneva, meeting regulating to carry out the functions of the WTO. Its membership is according to the rules a representative from each member country, but not all members from the developing world can keep a permanent representative there.

 

As usual there are going to be two sessions. After the Director-Generals Opening Remarks and the Chairman Speech:

1. There are going to be submissions of reports from working groups on various Doha Development Agenda issues. It is expected that the reports are recommendations on review of the issue.
   
2. That one is to be followed by discussions on aspect by ministerial delegations
   
3. At the end of the discussions the chairman will make a brief summary of the main points that have emerged in the discussions and a ministerial declaration will be adopted as a background for future discussion on Doha Development Agenda.
   

 

Then finally, here time will be given for discussion from the audience.

 

Proposed Countries to be Represented

USA	Venezuela
EU	Niger Republic
Japan	Mauritius
Canada	South Korea
Australia	Indonesia
New Zealand	China
India	Brazil
South Africa	Argentina
Nigeria	Cuba
Malaysia	Russia
Observer IMF	Observer: World Bank

 

 

Proposed Mock Ministers

Maryam Sunusi Sani

Mohammed Isma'il

Aremu Lateef

Abdulssalam Rilwan

Ibrahim Isma'il

Binta Mohammed Kurmawa

Fate Bukar Fate

Usman Adamu Bissallah

Maryam Suleiman

Hamza Jibril

Abdulganiyu Rufai Yakubu

Mustapha T. Muhiyideen

Mohammed Yusuf

Basiru Nuruddeen

Shamsuddeen Musa

Mansur Abdullahi

Hajira Abdulkadir

Adamu Adamu Alhassan

Ismail Hayatu

 

The Working Groups

1. The crisis of Doha Development Agenda Chairman: Lawi Isa Abdullahi
   
2. The Doha Agenda and the current Financial Crisis Chairman: Surajo Y. Muhammad
   
3. Trips and Public Health Chairman: Aminu Salisu
   
4. Trade distorting agricultural subsidies and the opening of Agricultural Market for Developing Countries Chairman: Sule Suleiman
   
5. Reduction of duties on goods and enhanced market for non-agricultural products (NAMA) Chairman: Aliyu Sheme
   
6. Reform of the dispute settlement mechanism chairman: Basiru Musa
   
7. Opening up of the services market in by removing of barriers in member states Chairman: Abubakar Salihu
   
8. Creation of trade facilitation measures by dismantling bureaucracy Chairman: Collins Y.
   
9. Improve rules governing trade Chairman: Isa Muhammed
   

   Defence instruments such as anti-dumping agreement, transparency and elimination of subsidies
   

10. Doha and Development: Trade-related Development cooperation; Special and Differential Treatment; Global Trust Fund beyond the regular WTO budget for technical support; Chairman Naziru Halliru
    

* The Chairman of the Working Groups are members of the General Council. Lawi Isah Abdullahi is the Chairman of the Council

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 globalization. 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. The same with the coming sixth performance.

 

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 Department. And we did.

 

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 organize 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.
   

 

Members of the Organizing Committee 2009/2010 Session

 

S/N	Name	Dept.	Post	Phone No.
1	Lawal Isah Abdullahi	Biology	Chairman	08037049846
2	Surajo Muhammad	Pol. Sci.	Member	08067041918
3	Collins Yimouie	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08038353002
4	Abubakar Salihu	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08039681330
5	Fate Bukar Fate	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08036197965
6	Maryam Suleiman	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08067536107
7	Binta Mohammed Kurmawa	Pol. Sci.	" " "	064938653
8	Basiru Musa	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08035049029
9	Aminu Salisu	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08037276589
10	Sule Suleiman	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08069285234
11	Isah Muhammad	Pol. Sci.	" " "	07031654060
12	Hamza Jibril	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08039621450
13	Aliyu Sheme	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08032078371
14	Abdulganiyu Rufai Yakubu	Agric Sci.	" " "	07028301948
15	Hamidu Salauhudeen	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08037032473
16	Ahmed Goma	Pol. Sci.		08034262820
17	Yahaya Usman Yahaya	Pol. Sci.	" " "	08033417812
18	Muhammad Naziru Halliru	Econs.	" " "	08037771468

 

Terms of Reference

1. To mobilize funding for hosting a get together for mock summit actors who graduated in 2009.
   
2. To raise funding for WTO-Mock Summit 2010
   
3. To take care of all other logistics and the administration of WTO-Mock Summit 2010
   
4. To disseminate the mission of the summit in an out of Bayero University, Kano
   
5. Any other assignment that may arise.
   

 

 

Preparation for the Mock-Summit

 

• Roles would be assigned within the first five weeks of the New Academic Session i.e. 2009/2010.
  
• Immediately the participants would be guided to start an independent research works, first on WTO-Doha Round and then on the position of the country to represent
  
• There are going to be series of working groups discussions and workshops during the first semester
  
• The performance is expected to be staged during the second semester.
  
• Three weeks to the performance training will kick-off by the Director delivering a lecture WTO-Doha Round
  
• All participants are expected to attend. Those who do not would be dropped 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: the Doha Development Agenda; the DDA and the current financial crisis; trips and public health; agriculture in international trade; the demand for enhanced market for non-agricultural products; reform of the dispute settlement mechanism; opening up of services market; trade facilitation measures; rules governing trade; Doha and Development.
  
• The resource persons as chairman of the working groups are: Lawi Isa Abdullahi; Surajo Y. Muhammad; Aminu Salisu; Sule Suleiman; Aliyu Sheme; Basiru Musa; Abubakar Salihu; Collins Y.; Isa Muhammad; and Nasiru Halliru.
  
• 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 one or two weeks. Then the mock summit will be staged