On the tricky subject of antidumping, Malaysia uses the antidumping laws and does not have an aggressive view of the need for change in this area. Rather, Malaysia feels that, yes, one can agree to talk about antidumping but such an agreement to have a discussion should not be construed as a commitment to change.
More later.
Best regards from Doha,
GBD Report No. 2 From Doha
And
The Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference
Thursday, November 9, 2008
OPENING DAY
This is the second in a series of planned daily reports from the WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar. The reader is warned that these will of necessity be more impressionistic than rigorous. Still, in the hope that they may be of some value to you, let me begin.
OVERVIEW
The conference was launched. The business community issued a statement urging that the conference move on to launch the next round of trade talks; and, of course, there were the usual miscellaneous incidents.
***
This is a wary crowd in a wary environment. Those here are largely all veterans of Seattle, now in a city with a lot less tear gas and a lot more guns. If the official delegates, NGOs, and the press share any thought, it is probably that they do not know just what will happen. Still the mood is confident and upbeat. There is momentum for a new round, though the path through the maze to the final ministerial declaration is not clear. Until this meeting is gaveled to a close, however, speculations will bounce back and forth between the optimism that the big goal of a round can be achieved and the pessimism that comes from dwelling upon the all-too-numerous objections Ð investment, intellectual property, environmental references, etc. etc. Ð from all too many countries.
India Ð its diplomacy, its 23,000 pharmaceutical companies, and its fundamental decisions about its own interests Ð remains perhaps the biggest single question mark in the calculus of WTO watchers. It is enough to make one wish that CNN were interactive. TodayÕs trade discussion in Doha might then have been usefully combined with the discussion in Washington between President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee.
RUNNING THE DAY BACKWARDS
The Opening Plenary. For officials and ministers throughout the hotels of Doha, the most significant portions of this day may have occurred as it blurred into Saturday. For the Global Business Dialogue, the WTO highlight was the plenary session. Shortly after 5:30 this afternoon, the meeting was opened by His Highness the Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al Thani and conducted by Qatari Minister of Finance, Economy and Trade, His Excellency Yousef Hussein Kamal.
China. The agenda for the conference was adopted, and it was announced that ChinaÕs applications for admission will be considered tomorrow afternoon (Saturday, November 10). The application of Taiwan -- formally the Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu Ð will be taken up on Sunday, November 11.
We are reminded that TaiwanÕs supporters used to argue that one accession should follow the other immediately, "with no coffee break." And so the question occurs to those outside the formal planning loops, What will China, the newest member say, when the issue of TaiwanÕs application comes up on Sunday? Perhaps nothing. We shall see.
Major speeches at the plenary were delivered by WTO Director General Mike Moore, by UNCTAD Secretary General Rubens Ricupero, representing Kofi Annan, and Stuart Harbinson, who chairs the WTOÕs General Counsel. Following are some short quotes we jotted down during the Moore speech:
From Mike Moore:
"We are now vastly better prepared to deal with issues than we were in Seattle."
"The rules of the system need to be reconsidered at intervals."
Of the GATT/WTO trading system: "Éthe most successful effort of sustained international cooperation of the past century."
"It [the trading system] has benefited most those whose markets have been most open to trade."
Stuart Harbinson presented the three major documents for consideration by ministers: 1) the draft ministerial declaration; 2) the statement on implementation issues; and 3) the statement on the relationship between IPR and access to medicines.
Business Group Issues Pro-Round Statement. A statement urging ministers to launch a new trade round and signed by 19 business organization was released at the GBD business conference here. A copy of this statement is attached, along with the GBD press release on it.
The lead speaker at the conference was Digby Jones, who is the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry. He made a strong case for the WTO and, to some extent, for sacrifices on the part of the business community where that may be necessary for the sake of the system and development. A more fulsome record of his remarks will be sent out by GBD after we return.
But to give you a bit of the flavor, Jones said, "We canÕt talk the talk any more on this; weÕve got to walk the walk. And it does mean that there are certain sectors in our democracies that are not going to like us for it very much either."
Other Episodes. Standing outside the hall where the plenary session was held were people with white papers over their mouths, most of whom were holding signs reading, "No voice in the WTO." All of these people had official NGO badges and so could have joined the rest of us in the large hall. They chose not to.
Then, when Mike Moore was introduced, someone in the back of the room booed Ð mostly likely an NGO protestor. However as we were filing out, a national delegate with a sense of humor put a different spin on it. "Who was that who booed at Moore?" he asked. "Was it Supachai?"
More tomorrow. Best regards from Doha,
***
GBD Report No. 3 From Doha
And
The Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference
Saturday & Sunday, November 10-11, 2001
NOW CHINAÕS IN
But Nothing Is Simple
This is the third in a series of reports from the WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar. The reader is warned that these reports will, of necessity, be more impressionistic than rigorous. This is particularly true of this eveningÕs report, which tries to capture a couple of potentially significant developments on the basis of very incomplete information. Still, in the hope that they may be of some value to you, let me begin.
OVEVIEW
Today seemed to be a day in which things got worse, with differences and diverse passions rather than agreements dominating discussions. Take your pick: Is that simply where things should be on the third day of a five-day conference? Or are things deteriorating more fundamentally? Did September 11th make agreement all but inevitable because of the geopolitical consequences of failure? Or has it made failure more likely by so radically changing the calculus by which one delegation judges the requirements of another? We are inclined to the former, more positive view in both cases, but we are not sure.
THE CHINA TWO-STEP (OR FOUR)
Nov. 11 Ð The WTO documents embodying the terms and conditions of ChinaÕs membership in the World Trade Organization were formally accepted by the WTO Ministers, yesterday, November 10, shortly before 7 p.m. The conference chairman and QatarÕs Finance, Economy and Trade Minister Kamal put the question of accepting the documents to the members of the conference and then declared: "The Ministerial Conference so agrees." He has a way with words.
Like other na•ve members of the audience, we thought that that settled the matter. That led us to wonder whether China would use the fact of its new membership to comment on the admission process for Taiwan, which was scheduled to follow the same path the following day, i.e., this evening. But that wasnÕt an issue. ChinaÕs membership could not become effective until after the signing ceremony on Sunday (today), and by the time of that ceremony, Minister Kamal was set to have gaveled in Taiwan. The signing ceremony for Taiwan will be on Monday.
If this understanding is correct, China never had to vote on the question of TaiwanÕs admission. Also if this understanding is correct, it is worth an intellectual snapshot, as it illustrates the continuing need for diplomacy in the management of the affairs of the WTO as well as the need for clear rules, openness, and transparency.
FRIENDS OF THE CHAIR
Background Note: There are more processes going than any of us has fingers, but formally there are two big ones. There is the plenary Ð on all the time, open and running on various television sets around the Sheraton Hotel, where the negotiations are taking place. In addition, there is the Committee of the Whole This group is open to all delegation but is limited to the head of delegation plus two. The comments below relate to the Committee of the Whole.
As many of you will have learned, meeting facilitators have come to the WTO. The technique of moving the negotiating process from the Harbinson papers Ð the Draft Ministerial Declaration and related papers Ð to consensus documents has been facilitators. These officials, also called Friends of the Chair (FOCs), have been asked to work with six issues areas. These areas are as follows, along with the relevant Friend of the Chair, where I think I know who it is.:
Agriculture
Brigadier-General George YEO, Head of the Singapore Delegation.
Environment
FOC: H.E. Heraldo MU„OZ Valenzuela, Head of the Chilean Delegation.
Rules
FOC: H.R. Mr. Alec ERWIN, Head of the South African Delegation.
Singapore Issues
(Investment, Competition, Trade Facilitation, and Transparency in Government Procurement) FOC: The Hon. Pierre S. PETTIGREW, Head of the Canadian Delegation.
Trips & Access To Medicines
H.E. Dr. Luis Ernesto DERBEZ Bautista, Head of the Mexican Delegation.
Implementation
H. E. M. Pascal COUCHEPIN, Head of the Swiss Delegation. (Includes certain subsidies, textile, and customs valuation issues, and it has been said that progress is being made on thise.
Intellectual Property Rights
H.E. Dr. Luis Ernesto DERBEZ Bautista Head of the Delegation from Mexico
Other Issues
In addition, there is a group and an FOC for issues other than those covered in the above six categories.
This process of FOCs meeting with delegates began yesterday (November 10). At a briefing late this afternoon, Keith Rockwell of the WTO noted that all of the facilitators had reported back to the Committee of the Whole. His general summary was that none was able to report an agreement on a text for his issue area, though in most areas they were able to report that progress was being made.
TRIPS ALARM
When we left the Sheraton this evening for the Ritz Ð five miles and and a few checkpoints away Ð the biggest battle seemed to be over intellectual property, specifically the "Draft Declaration on Intellectual Property and [Access to Medicines] [Public Health]." The battleground, with all sides dug in and fighting hard, was paragraph 4, which contains too options.
The casual observer might be forgiven for believing that the entire work of this Ministerial was to be about the negotiation of future WTO provisions, things which would come into force upon the conclusion of the next round, if there is one. In this area, that is not necessarily so.
Paragraph 4. The first option for paragraph 4 contains this language: "Nothing in the TRIPS Agreement shall prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health." That sentence is an anathema to those who rely on the TRIPS Agreement. Public health is such a broad concept, they say, that any WTO member would be able to ignore their TRIPS obligations Ð commitments to protect patents etc. Ð simply by claiming this public health exemption.
And, just possibly, they could do so immediately, not in three or five years, whenever the next round ends, but as of next Wednesday if this conference concludes on the 13th as scheduled. The argument is that this statement, if adopted by ministers, would be binding on the WTO. The WTO official we quizzed about this could not confirm the correctness of this interpretation but did allow that possibility.
The language of Option 2 for Paragraph 4 tends to reinforce this scary Ð or at least immediate Ð interpretation of Option 1. Option 2 says in part, "Éthis Declaration does not add to or diminish the rights and obligations of Members provided in the TRIPS agreement." Possible interpretation: Option 1 does diminish those rights and obligations.
Comment.The Harbinson drafts are brilliant texts. That assessment reflects not so much a close reading of them but rather an awareness of the widespread, if grudging, support they enjoy throughout the various delegations. In this area, however, there may need to be an Option 3.
TWO CONVERSATIONS
Last night we chanced upon a circle of reporters in a conversation with Murasoli MARAN, IndiaÕs Minister of Commerce and Industry and the head of the Indian Delegation. One reporter asked Minister Maran if he had received instructions from Prime Minister Vajpayee, following the latterÕs meetings in Washington. This was Mr. MaranÕs response: "I have come with a mandate. The mandate is to stand firm."
Earlier today, we had a conversation with a Danish representative. "What does Denmark want?" we asked.
"Denmark," he said, "wants to see some language on environment and on labor, but it wants a round more." The same representative went on to express concern that this Ministerial could still fail. His worry was that some countries Ð he mentioned India and Zimbabwe Ð had so painted themselves as opponents in key areas as to make it extremely difficulty for them to sign off a final declaration agreeable to others.
PERSONAL NOTE. Today I got to the large department store just outside the security zone. I had burger (a fraction of the cost of a cup of tea at the hotel) and discovered that the mall had a VictoriaÕs Ð no, not secret -- a VictoriaÕs Style. The mannequins wore long dresses, but more colorful and more daring that then the black abbayas of the women who passed before the VS window.
***
More tomorrow. Best regards from Doha,
***
GBD Report No. 4 From Doha
And
The Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference
Monday, November 12, 2001, Morning
FEAR OF PRECAUSTION
This is the fourth in a series of reports from the WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar. The reader is warned that this, like other such reports, will of necessity, be more impressionistic than rigorous. Still, in the hope that it may be of some value to you, let me begin.
OVEVIEW
From the point of view of those who, like the Global Business Dialogue, want to see a round launched at this Ministerial, the mood this morning seems a little better than it was last night. We shall save any further general characterization until this evening.
***
TRIPS
In a briefing to U.S. NGOs this morning, Ambassador Allgeier characterized the mood in the TRIPS discussion as much improved. ThatÕs not much to go on. Corridor conversations with others suggest that the focus of the discussion has been Option 1 rather than Option 2, which reportedly has been abandoned. If that is so, then those who rely on the protections of the WTOÕs IPR regime still have their work cut out for them. (See Report No. 3 for background.)
AGRICULTURE
The Harbinson text is repeatedly referred to as a "house of cards," but with the understanding that it is the house that delegates expect to live with. The U.S. has been clear that, while there are improvements it would like to see, it is prepared to accept the Harbinson text for the sake of getting a round launched in Doha. Evidently, all but one of the major players, including India and Japan, have adopted this position. The notable exception is the European Union, which is still in the position of demanding changes in the Harbinson language on agriculture. Specifically, the Commission wants changes in the areas of export subsidies and "non-trade concerns."
ENVIRONMENT
The principal U.S. objective in the environmental area is the elimination of fish subsidies. This is described as a win-win-win proposal, because it offers benefits with respect to trade liberalization, the environment, and development. There is some opposition, notably from Japan and Korea, but judging by the way the issue is being described, it seems it is one that will make its way into the final declaration.
The European Union, of course, has a bigger list of demands in the environmental area, and they have made it clear that, for political reasons, they cannot come away empty handed. Briefly, their goal is a negotiation that addresses three topics: 1) the relationship of World Trade Organization to the Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 2) labeling, and 3) the precautionary principle.
The WTO and MEA. The U.S. is willing to see a discussion go forward about the relationship between the WTO and MEA in terms, for example, of facilitating cooperation between and among secretariats. It is not willing to discuss the substantive integration of the provisions of the various agreements with those of the WTO. Our understanding is that this is part of the EU agenda.
Labeling. The status of this issue is a box that, for us at least, is still to be filled in.
Precaution. We have been told that most delegations react with fear to the idea of a negotiation about the precautionary principle. So far, at least, the EU is not making any headway on this issue.
ANTIDUMPING
Advice to the interested: If this is an issue you care about, you should be working it. The fact that Rep. Sander Levin of Michigan and his able assistant Tim Reif are here in Doha is unquestionably a good thing for both the short term and long term outlook for the current negotiations. LevinÕs interest in preserving a strong system of U.S. trade remedies, however, is well known, as is the interest on the part of many countries in altering the WTOÕs rules in this area.
It seems to us i) that Administration will need some flexibility in this area in order to bring the Doha conference to a successful conclusion; ii) that the argument in favor clearly phased discussions Ð the first phase being a year or more for the identification of the issues to be negotiated and the second phase the negotiation of those issues Ð that that idea has merit; iii) that whatever formula Ambassador Zoellick formally articulates is going to need strong private sector support in the United States because it will, inevitably attract strong opposition.
More this evening. Best wishes from Doha,
***
GBD Report No. 5 from Doha
And
The Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference
Monday, November 12, 2001 Evening
THE DECISIVE NIGHT?
This is the fifth in a series of reports from the WTO Ministerial in Doha, Qatar. The reader is warned that these reports are more impressionistic than rigorous. Still, in the hope that this may be of some value to you, let me begin.
It is now roughly 10:30 in the evening here. By this time tomorrow, I should be at the Airport and the outcome of the Fourth Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization may well be known to all of us. As for where things stand right now, I have not learned a great deal today, and my last bit of input from someone in a position to know was three hours ago. I will share that for what it is worth. First, though, the obligatory predictions and some observations. (You will note I have dropped the editorial we. That is because it bespeaks a confidence I do not have right now; hence the simpler first person singular.)
I am assuming that the smart money is still betting on a round. Presumably that is so in part because this is too important to fail, though that may be a passŽ concept, and in part because the U.S. appears to be making some endgame concessions. My own, untutored reading of the key paragraph in the statement on IPR and access to medicines Ð though better than Option 1 of the Harbinson text Ð could be seen as such a concession. The latest position on antidumping is also being viewed that way, at least by some. With respect to the latter, I have not seen any text, and so I am reporting only rumor.
Yet in thinking about these developments, I canÕt shake from my mind the conversation I had with a colleague from India who predicted Ð with real regret Ð that the effort to launch a round here would fail, that India for one was not prepared to accept such an outcome. Most negotiators will be working all night tonight, I suspect. One can only hope that the picture will look quite different in the morning, as it often does.
THE NGO BRIEFING
At around 7 pm this evening, there was a briefing for NGOs by Hans-Peter Werner (sp) of the World Trade Organization. This was, in effect, a report on the 6 p.m. meeting this evening of the heads of delegation, aka, the Committee of the Whole. Mr. Werner made the following points:
