allAfrica.com: Africa: Africans Head for WTO With Low Expectations (Page 1 of 2)

African trade ministers and officials are approaching the fifth World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial talks that begin in Cancun, Mexico, on Wednesday, with low expectations.

Since the collapse of the WTO's 1999 session in Seattle, Washington, the organisation has struggled to come up with a new world treaty on trade. It took about two years before trade ministers met in Doha, Qatar in November 2001 and gave themselves three years to complete work on a new treaty.

The 146-member organization has gotten virtually nowhere. Since launching the current round of world trade talks in Doha, WTO members have missed every deadline they set for themselves. "Up to now globalization has completely failed poor people and the WTO’s trade rules have made things worse," says Adriano Campolina Soares, head of the food rights campaign for the London-based advocacy group, ActionAid.

In Washington,last week, President George W. Bush urged WTO negotiators to recover enough lost ground in Cancun to reach a new world trade agreement by the 2005 deadline it set in Doha. But hardly anyone thinks that's likely to be achieved.

An end to the agricultural subsidies in Europe and the United States that make African agricultural products uncompetitive tops the agenda of concerns. The WTO would like to say it is making progress on the issue. But last week, in a statement on behalf of the Africa Group, Morocco criticized a draft WTO declaration on trade for failing to commit to ending subsidies, describing the draft as "a complex set of rules that appear to formalize... the continued use of domestic support. No mention is made of possible time-frames for the elimination of major portions of trade-distorting domestic support, a matter of great importance to the AG [Africa Group]."

But European Union (EU) Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler last week indicated that such demands went too far; in a sharply worded rebuff to poor nations pressing for the abolition of subsidies, he said: "If they want to do business, they should come back to mother earth. If they choose to continue their space odyssey, they will not get the stars, they will not get the moon, they will simply end up with empty hands."

Rich countries spend some US$300 billion a year on farm subsidies, about six times more than on development aid. Every EU cow gets about $2.50 a day in subsidies; a Japanese cow gets $7.50 a day. The World Bank estimates that getting rid of farm subsidies in rich countries would cause a 17 percent rise in global agriculture production, adding $60bn a year, or six percent, to the rural incomes of low and middle-income states. Annual cotton subsidies to U.S. farmers of more than $3bn (three times U.S. foreign aid to Africa) "depress world cotton prices and crowd out poor but efficient farmers in West Africa," said the Bank in a report on Global Economic Prospects released last week.

Tens of thousands of anti-globalization protestors are expected in Cancun this week.

Even the announcement by the WTO that it had cut a deal to permit developing nations to import cheap generic drugs to combat HIV/Aids, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, was greeted with disappointment and skepticism by several aid agencies. It's largely cosmetic, said an Oxfam spokesperson, although African nations seem pleased. "It's good news for Africa and especially good news for the people of Africa who so desperately need access to affordable medicine," Kenya's ambassador, Amina Chawahir Mohamed, told reporters in Geneva.

The WTO deal requires the drugs to look different - not to be a copy of the originals. The deal may set up a patent conflict with countries like India, whose laws permit copying branded drugs as long as they use a different manufacturing process. But South Africa may benefit. Aspen Pharmacare, South Africa's largest producer of generic medicines,is planning to double production over the next year.

For some, however, the debate over subsidies is largely "peripheral." Economist Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, citing World Bank figures, says gains from removing all the rich countries' remaining barriers to merchandise trade -- including manufacturing as well as agricultural products -- and removing agricultural subsides will have little real impact. "When the changes are phased in by 2015... an African country with an annual income of $500 per person would then have $503." In Weisbrot's view, the IMF "creditors cartel" and the "unpayable" debt burden, particularly in Africa - and a range of "inappropriate" macro-economic policies [are] "likely to have far more severe consequences."

Nonetheless certain crops subsidized in the West -- like cotton -- are of unquestionably of crucial importance to some African nations. But last month in Nairobi, the chairman of African trade ministers, Jayakrishna Cuttaree, urged the continent's governments not to be side-tracked from issues vital to Africa, as covered in the WTO's Doha Round. "We will not defuse pressure on Doha to new issues of discussion," he warned.

Deep divide

Beyond differences between rich nations and poor nations - and indeed between middle income nations, rich nations and poor nations - on specific issues like subsidies and generic drugs, the deep divide underlying every debate centers on what should the WTO be.

web allafrica.com	Enter your search terms	Submit search form
OR subscribers use AllAfrica's premium search engine


Use our pull-down menus to find more stories

Today's Most Active Stories