GLOBALISATION AND HEALTH
Item
- Title
- GLOBALISATION AND HEALTH
- extracted text
-
RF_EC_4_SUDHA
rrom:
To:
"icngokrn" <icngokin(g)bir vsni net.in>
<sochara@vsnl com>
Thursdsv Auousf 07, 9003 11 AA AM
From: aoiia cheria and/or euwin <t annucneria@.vahoo.co.uk>
ociu. iviunuay, July zo. zw.
Subicct: lanitaandcdwin] A-
ition [edited: long]
> groundiess pessimism, ana oddly enough, me iwo can sometimes unite.
> To begin with the former, the obdurate optimist tends to hope, if only
> processes, such as the flourishing market economy, that has led to ths
> for ail. in this giowing perspective, the doubters tend to appear to be
ui head, whether or iioi they arc kind m heart. "Give us time - don't be
empnasize > the continuing miserv in the world. Rut thev are. freauentlv enough. also
> argument. Pessimism can - and often aoes - lead to a quiet acceptance of a
There i-
rial but effective congruence between the stubborn
omgiblc pessimist. 1 ho optimist finds resistance
> unnecessary whereas, tne pessimist finds it to be useless. As James branch
> Cabell put it (reacting to a very different manifestation of this
> conundrum), The optimist proclaims thai we live in the best of all
worlds: and the pessimist fears tins is true.'
ignation. It is in this general
V V V
context
EiOuaiizatiOu ...
8/7/0j
*ix.
I-tc •->1
*'
-'"t T-l.ntO ~T'E
, <■ T V'O1,’d ,1" ,v''r'
issue
> npr.o TR® nr.^Tpcrprc r»rr.®r»
--i .
—-
° corionc
f^pTnvh’PC nc: ’’anti-alnhnuVniinn"^ Tc
• -- — ---- o------ —------ -- ““
> giobaiizaikni a new foiiy? And are inc protesters realty against
> globalization, as their rhetoric suggests? Is globalization a new folly? I
would argue that globalization is neither especially new, nor in general,
v v
A historical understanding of the nature of globalization can be quite
useful here. Over thousands of years, globalization has contributed to the
> progress of the world, through travel, trade, migration, spread of
> influences. and dissemination of knowledge and understanding (including of
> -------------scipnrp nnd---fpchnnlnovt
Tn have
cj+nnnprl
airmail
nation
have
-----y.-------------_ ~-«r £--- O--'---------— would
*•
--• - Hone
— -
> inepajabie iianii to ilic progress of humanity.
' ZTWUJ-1V A VW
£J.VlAt.L OpiOWU VI OVJLVULW, tVVUUlVJtvgj O1J.U UiaUlVUlUllVO VY CIO
> changing the nature ot the old world, but the dissemination then was. to a
in tHs opposite d'rection to v.iiot v/o see todoy For exootpie.
me hign Technology in ihe world of iuuO A.D. included paper and priming,
> f1>e crossbow and onnnowder the clock and the iron chain suspension
1711UUC.
> the kite and the magnetic compass, the wheel barrow and the rotary fan.
> one of these examples of hi ch lechnoiocv of the world a millennium aso was
> v-pll-pcrnWichpn
nun—pYfp-n^rvpIv
in —Chinn
nnn
■nrnrfirnllv
.. —------------------------------------ ---------- - --7 nepd
---------------------------, ...
— wac
.. — r
----------------- j
unknown
> elsewhere. Globalization spread them across the world, including Europe.
> A similar movement occurred m the Eastern influence on Western
mathematics.
> The decimal system emerged and became weii developed in India between the
> second and the sixth century, and was used extensively also by Arab
> mathematicians soon therealiei. These mathematical innovations reached
> Europe mainly in the last quarter of the tenth century, and began having
> major impact in the early years of the last millennium, playing a major
> in iiie scientific revolution that helped to transform Europe. Indeed,
Eurone
scientifically -
at
> that time And the same annh'es - though in the reverse
> uuctzuuii" touav. To iejcvt vaobanzauuti ol science and technology Ou
the
> ground that this is Western influence would not only amount to overlooking
> global contributions - arawn from many different pans of the world - that
> lie solid!’' kohinH so-called Western science and technology, but would
also
> he quite a daft practical decision, given the extent to which the whole
Pngs 3 of* 10
To idontif" ’ this
oro-^with. tho ’’Western imneiiulism” of idoos.
> but it would be a great mistake io see giobaiization primarily as a
> The pot
'
**
opposite r-.f olnbnbyation would be persistent separatism and
icieuiiess auiaiXy. it is niieieStiiig liete tO icCOllcCt ail image of
> seclusion that was invoked with much anxiety in many old Sanskrit texts in
> India
r.---- +,,.r „„,iV »»„VZt,oir»t,«..oo-.rl
;<• A+hXJLXO
“ XU UX-1W
*.
.LX-XViXV
MViXUUlUlC. 11V111
W11XJ V*. 11U1X IXXVT V*U VXJ.XV
* •’j^n
V>M-Xmi,.V
O
> sion/ of a wep-iroc - the kupamanduKa - wnich lives its whole life within
> weii and is suspicious of everything outside it. Beginning from about 500
> B.C.. there are at least four Sanskrit texts, Ganaoath,
> well-irogs.
> i he weii-frog does, of course have a '’world view.” but it is a world view
that is entirely confined to that little well The scientific, cultural
aiiu
> economic history of the world would have been very limited had we lived
> weii-frons. i his remains an important issue, since there are pientv of
"> •n-^il-rrnrre
fnr^pv
our
r»r
rs-vprqp,---------m?»nv
cnb’ritnrc---------nnH
.. —----- ---------------------- ----------j - -----------------, _
_-------------j--------------------
advocates
> of well-frogs
> The importance of global contact and interaction applies to economic
’> relations nmoii'T others. Indeed there is much evidence that the rrlobs.l
> economy nas brought prosperiiv to many different areas on the giobe.
> Pervasive poverty and "nasty, brutish and short" lives dominated the world
> few centuries ago. with only a few pockets of rare affluence. In
> that penury, modem technology, as weii as economic interrelations, has
> imiuentiai. And they continue to remain important
A A A
> today. The economic predicament of the poor across the world cannot be
■- reversed by withholding from them the great advantages of contemporary
> technology. the well-established efficiency of international trade and
■> exchange, .and the social as well as economic merits of living in open
rather
than closed societies
Rather, the main issue is how to make good use of the remarkable benefits
> economic intercourse and technological progress in a way that pays
attention io iiic interests of the deprived and the underdog. That is, T
> would
th? principal onestion that emerges from the
Page 4 of 10
> movements, it is. constiiutiveiv. not a question about globalization at
nil
> and inc linkage with globalization is only instrumental and contingent.
♦ vnat mvix 10 iuv mum pi/ini vx wiivvntivn; xxiv pinivipo-i vna.iivn^i', x
would
■> ciihm.r •"plnTpc in QnO WOj 01 0110111—1, tO Ut-QUallty - intprnatinnol t»c
-> weii as iniranationai. The inequalities that irk concent disparities in
> affluence, and also gross asymmetries in political, social and economic
> OvvVci. ilic iSSllc 01 mcuuaiiiy 1 ciaieS Cciiti'aiiy 10 tile CiiSputcS OVc!
> globalization. A crucial question concerns the sharing of the potential
,-.J ryt- -i ? - — ■’•-'S--1 i~ •« +1-.nti
nh '->
*-1'4
T-ioor- noot-.t-rioc nod Kotifoon
iWlLUJ X1V111 e,lVl>UU4.UHVll. UVK1VV11 UV11 U11M pwi wwnuxvo, unv uvmwn
> uincrcm croups wimin a couninz.
Distributional questions aie far more complex and far-reaching than the
> n is ubviuud ciiOugii diac cuuuOmic giOvviii Cail be cXiiciucly helpful ill
> removing poverty. This is so both because the poor can directly share in
> increased wealth and income generated bv economic growth, and also because
> the
overall
inprense
in- —
national
nrosnprim
hpln in the ------------------finanoino
---------. ---— —
----- - — —
—’—— r
r -—j pan
—
o ot
—
> public services (including hcaiih care and education), which in turn can
be
Particularly useful lor die poor and die deprived.
■> And yet the removed of poverty 3nd deprivation, connot be seen to be cm
> auiomaiic restin of economic growth. The basic problem concerns not merely
> the ohviouv point that it nmet make a difference how the new incomes
gciieiaicd aic diSiiibuicd aiiivilg die diiiuieiii daSSeS.
> f5ui more mndamenraiiv. we nave to recognise ihax deprivation with which
have reasons 10 be concerned is not just the absolute lowness of income.
" viiiivxCuL L/iiC iUlviivkUvU UUii'CvUvUUo.
iiiviUUiiig iliv plvValvilCC <jl
> preventable illness, needless hunger, premature mortality, unceasing
>■ illiteracy, social
insccurib' <md th-p denial of
poiiticai iibeny. The income going to the poor is only one determining
> influence amono mtrnv others' in dealing with deprivation
> economic growth occurs. The abiiityXn the jybr io participate in economic
> growth depends on a variety7 of enabling social conditions. It is hard to
Pnce
n£ 1 A
----- O'
liiitcracv. social exclusion, economic insecuiity. and die denial of
pnHtir-i Hh^rty The income going tn the- poor k only one di-.te.rmii
insiinuionai bases of ranicipaiion and Security
A secuiia issue cuiiccius iue uiuccss iiuuugu which income is cuiliuu as
economic growth occurs. The ability of the poor to participate in economic
growth defends On a variety of onablia- go"* 1
t»
+~
participate m me expansionary process or me marxet mecnamsm
crv‘=»r‘ioU’.’
in a world 01 globalized trade) ii one is illiterate and unschooled, or if
one is bothered by undernourishment and ill health, nr if artificial
background. exclude substantia! carts oi humanity from fair economic
Siniimiiv, ii uiic nas uu vaunai iuui even a unv unit ui laiiu 111 me
absence of’bnrt ’■eform \ and no access to microcredit (without the
or collateral ownership), n is not easv Tor a person to snow mucn
cnteipjisc m tne maiKCt economv.
1 he benelns ot the market economy can indeed be momentous, as the
oi ihe market system rightly argue. bin men the non-market arrangements
me suaiiiiH ui cducaiiuu. cpiucuiiuiogy. laud iciuim. imCiU-uicuit
facilities, appropriate legal protections, women’s rights and other means
empowerment must also be seen to be imnonani - even as wavs oi spreading
nnnacc
inp mnrVpT Ar'rvnrvrn" • f’icjcnpc ir» ttrni.-»n ntont- m
»rt
*
rr»f nrrtrnnotnc toVa
aMonishing.lv litiic interest).
indeed, manv advocates oi the market economv don’t seem to take the market
i-ien.l;, serious!}.... InstituuOnol eroodemng needed roi erucient
access to me market economv is no iess important for the success of me
ccvuuuiv man me iciuuvai oi uameis to uaue.
mav noi ainomaucanv expand, me important social serxneesi mere is an
o/ i o/ 03
icsoiuccx cun be pm. i iic lomc oi grow th-mediated" advancement may be
> * in ihr1 othf^r n'jfif SQi*th k orea too continued to ne&^ec^ arrangements tor
>> remaining vulnerable io downside risks, 11 had xo pav heaviiv as a resuix
> oi political incentives t'in addition to the intrinsic importance of
> democratic riohts) The market economy may he hi chi v nrodnetive but it
> TY^velniMriPnt nf
nrvKinnikv-t m<> hntinne i\ nniMMnnf nkn for
lacjkiiiig mcuuaiiiics uciwccu nations, inc ncca iui a giuuai cunnniinicnt io
> democracy and to narticinatorv governance can hardlv he overstressed
> However, as Creor^e Soros has nomtect out. Internationai business concerns
autocracies raxher uian m activist and iess reeimenied democracies, and
-* ruitnci. multinational inms can also cacli iiicn iiniuciioc on inc
> priorities of public expenditure in less secure third-world countries in
> direction oi civinn preference io me satetv and convenience oi me
ihe oiher in the Colo war which was panicuiariv aciive over Africa?.
picciscn the nve pci manent nicinbcrs 01 t'nc Scuumy Council of the united
> V-tion^
--k,r. they v.^re toae.tVr resnon^hle for 86 per rent of-11
> arcniiecmre or me world, wmen we nave innerired from me nasi
institutions such as the vv’oiid Bank, the i.ivi.r., and othci institutions),
> was tarpelv sej r,n in the 1940^ following the Ifretton Woods Conference in
> me msiimnonai divisions or power and aumornv mat me allied powers
> mucn areaier men man n is todav: me idea or numan rianrs was smi
weak, die power 01 ikGCs had not cniciycd yet: and dcmociacy was dciinitciv
> not seen as 3 aloha! entitlement
> 1 he world ;s a verv ditterent place now trom what it was then. The force
eiobai protesis paniy refiecis a new mood and a fresh inclination io
> 1 nere is a need tor cnance. i ne world ot tirenon woods is detmiteiv not
1\J dUlilv CAltlll.
LlUb livid UCHU11 LU UUUU1 111 111C 1U1111 Ui UllUllUlUL^ pllUllllCd
> within intern a-ion a• institutions. For c\r3rnry-e. even though the remove? of
> resoiuiions. n nas now become, at least tormaiiv. me acKnowieoced
3/1 o' G3
>• example, inroiiyn semnu ud cieo.icaieo agencies io oeai wnn giooai ecuiny
>
'..veieormn^ vvhqr
aFeadv in the established institutional
i 11V VLUIVU 1YGUVUD. 11J.V1 14V41O£, 411V —J W1 V 4<U } “VJ VI1V1 <11 O V1J1W. V«L1 piCiy <4
> np!Ch biseer part in torcing attention on these broader institutional, as
v.or. oolicy. concerns. p 2 m c nl or!y ifthe Uhl is liberated from
pciiup- in winch ii has been ivpicaiiv kepi bv inadeauate
*
financial
">
amt tw thr
*
nF Qfnnp iTiPini’iPT om mtrtpc tn nav flv-’-n rtnpc
LllvSC ISOUvS 11CCU U1UC111 dllCHUUU. <uiu uuuuis UlUVLUv <1 UCUei biaiUULK
> point than complacency.
> c onciudnc KemarKs.
1 0 conclude. ihcie is a. compelling nccu in the cuiiieinpoiai v world to ask
nr<. nniy
Prnnnm;cc. ?nd
of aloha!iz-fion hnf
>
>> o non rate oonmism nnn senseless nessinnsni mai leao.s 10 giooai resisnanon
features - oici and new.
rxiiu newel msuuuiuiicu ucuanuics win uc iiccucd num io auaicss iiic
> substantive issues raised hv Q-oha- do’-.his. and to halt the cvcle o-r
10
iiin.Hjj laiiuv eoi isij Lie live loie nowcvei. 111 ordei ioi mat to Happen, we
w aoovoo ixivov iixvv vinvnio <xii<a vncxiivii^vo in iviuio vi tiiv giOC/in Mtivonvno
> thev nose, rather than tor the apparently anti-elobalization answers that
iheniseives
r»f 1 ;•>-•=■ Ci^-iK-rol Wi’:"w--.-=-<tc .-yF
>
fi’OiW V>Tn’rh thrn’e ic nn
eseape
> and no great reason to seek escape.
> r5ui wnue we nave reason enounn 10 support pionaiizaiion m me oes.t sense
„ r rl-.o’ I’r-^o
or- 'Op-, -t-y-.-n] 1 -. • 1122^051 ?.llt £1
*1102.1
2-2- pl2C'l-21
issuer mai. need io be addressed ai me same dine, vve need yioinii cdiics
-,-,^12 <40 iilWCil VJVM4171O. yvilvll- V'< V UV 11VH liWk.4 ID ^1W<41 W111|-A1C4W11V^ 111 V11V
->
v.orif! of ■■pnwve /'^nVor? and extreme misery in which we bye.
if vour fisis are weak, vou can use Them oniy to wipe your rears-Korean
-v v> v-. .v 1 tiavxu2X.lx.wJLir x.CXOfy ; vim
> hnn- "c. eUcy.v-ibnc! .cnm
Xi
)!)A \H. ' |H( tA A-vSSb A A' L>K< )OlJS' 1 M
This seminar series is a joint collaboration between
The Centre for rhe Study of Gicbai Ethics and rhe
Alternatives io Gioba! Capitalism Seminar Series
Monday 6th October
"Dismentiing the Anti-Ethics Mschine”
Tim oviiuing
Schoo! of Development Studies, University of East Anglia
Fhursday 16
*" October
“Open Cspitelisni”
Chris Cook
School of Development Studies, University of East Anglia
Thursday 6‘n November
“If the Eaith is our tViOther, whet ere the economic implscstions?”
Molly Scott Cato
Welsh Institute for Research into Cooperatives, IAA/IC Business School in Cardiff
a-yth
Rn__
ivionu^y m
— i—
iMOveinuvi
“The Coming First World Debt Crisis”
Ann Poitrfor
Jublilee Research at New Economics Foundation
Monday T" December
“Monetary arrtf Financial Justice: anecessary feature of world development"
James Robertson
Turning Point 2000
Thursday 26th February
"Faith in the Global Economic Order- Response of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and
Christians"
Dr Vineeta Shanker
World Faiths Development Dialogue
Thursday 25
* h March
“The Role of Ethics and Spirituality in Voluntary Simplicity Lifestyles"
Dr Dierdre Shaw
Glasgow Caledonian University
Helena Norberg-Hodge
Director of the International Society for Ecology and Culture
To be confirmed
w
........
' ■
a WAW?rrr.\. r_ m„. m/WAr. \ wtrn \ ym s.
wmwjjww wi > i W v . , m X w. wwww Swi
Cancun Ministerial Failure: Derailing WTO
Amit Sen Gupta and Prabir Purkayastha
The final collapse of the Cancun WTO Ministerial meeting in Cancun without any
agreement is a defining moment in the current phase of trade negotiations. For the first
time, the club of the rich termed the quad — the US, European Union, Japan, Canada —
did not get their own way. The earlier collapse in Seattle had as much to do with the
protests outside as divisions within the quad, particularly the US and EU. This time, the
poorest of the developing countries, incensed by the way their concerns were treated and
the procedure of selective consultations, walked out. While the rich countries predicted
gloom and doom for the poor countries, their argument was quite simple: no deal is better
than a bad deal.
The official WTO Ministerial statement after the Cancun meeting, with six paragraphs,
had just one operative sentence: “We therefore instruct officials to continue working on
outstanding issues with a renewed sense of urgency and purpose and taking fully into
account all the views we have expressed in this Conference."
Probably never before has the failure of a multilateral negotiation been greeted with such
exultation. People from all over the world danced on the streets of Cancun as this news
came in, signalling the derailment of the meeting. They celebrated at the spot, which had
witnessed the tragic suicide of a Korean protestor just four days back.
For days protestors from around the world had infiltrated the area near the conference
venue and caused mayhem, blocking traffic, confronting delegates and being chased
around by a bewildered army of private security, conscripts and military policemen.
Finally, on Saturday, these protestors had something to really cheer about. The jubilation
at the final outcome of the WTO summit — not just in Cancun but also in cities and towns
across the globe — is a pointer to how hated the current world order of WTO has become.
Why the Failure?
The final collapse in Cancun occurred when developing country governments refused to
accept a draft declaration heavily biased in favour of the EU and US positions. After
three days of negotiations, the Mexican Chairperson produced a draft that made no
concessions to the developing countries. The draft accepted continuation of agriculture
subsidies by the EU and US as well as the launching of negotiations on the controversial
new issues known as Singapore issues, both of which had been opposed by the
developing countries. The Kenyan delegation, under pressure of other African countries,
walked out of the Green Room discussions involving 30 countries, effectively bringing
the hopes of an agreement to an end.
Why did the developed countries fail to get their way in Cancun, as they have done so
often in the past? There are three major reasons for this. The first and certainly the most
important is that after having conceded so much in the Uruguay round of GATT
negotiations that led to the formation of the WTO, the developing countries have been
pushed to the wall. The benefits of globalisation have so obviously gone to the developed
countries that it is increasingly difficult for the ruling elite in the developing countries to
give further ground and yet be able to face their people at home. There is no doubt that
the rising tide of mass movements and public opinion in these countries have made it
"Po <x>
qw
1
1> 1^/5-003
I
difficult for them to yield further without being able to show some reciprocal concessions
from the developed countries.
The second reason for the failure was that the Cancun meeting was held in the backdrop
of the invasion of Iraq by US forces. In the previous meeting at Doha in 2001, held in the
aftermath of the World Trade Tower bombing in New York, the US was able to pose as a
victim and coerced the rest of the world to show their sympathy by accepting its
demands. In Cancun, they were clearly seen as bullyboys, with disdain for word opinion
including the UN. The failure at Cancun had as much to do with US arrogance as with the
EU's attempt to manipulate on Singapore issues while conceding little on agriculture.
The third reason for the failure was that given the stagnation of the global and their home
economies, the US and the EU had very little room for manoeuvre. In the US, Bush
already faces an attack on his handling of the economy, compounded by the unravelling
of his Iraq strategy. For the Bush administration to provide any "concession" before his
2004 re-election, it would have needed much larger concessions from others. The EU was
in an even worse position. While pushing for the Singapore issues, they were not
prepared to make any concessions on agriculture subsidies. In Cancun, both the US and
the EU therefore were looking for only one-way concessions. The collapse in Cancun
was inevitable once the US and EU realised that the developing countries, for a change,
were not going to capitulate.
Finally, however, the abiding image that will remain of Cancun is the united front that the
developing countries were able to forge. Led by what came to be known as the G21,
(group of 21 countries — including Brazil, India, China, Malaysia, South Africa) the
developing countries remained united till the end. The resolve of the developing countries
drew enormous strength from the massive worldwide campaign that had, for over a year,
rallied people on the slogan of “Derail the WTO at Cancun”!
India, as a part of the G-21, along with Brazil, China and South Africa played a
significant role in these negotiations. They were able to rally the bulk of the developing
countries behind them and act as a counter to the US-EU led quad grouping. By all
accounts, the quad attempts to split the group through a carrot and stick approach failed.
With the WTO Secretariat acting as an instrument of US-EU interests, and a compliant
Mexican Chairperson, the US-EU tried to ram though a draft, which not only did not
reflect the concerns of the developing countries but also in some respects was even worse
than the pre-conference draft. The last straw was the contemptuous dismissal of the
demand of five West African countries that had asked for removal of cotton subsidies,
which had led to a collapse of the price of cotton in the global market. They were asked
by the US to diversify their agriculture and this issue was sought to be clubbed with the
textile discussions. The US was not willing to budge on support to its special interest
lobbies even if the poorest of African countries such as Mali and Benin were facing
bankruptcy. With the African countries on the boil, the conference failed when the EU
insisted on discussing the new Singapore issues before discussing agricultural subsidies.
Consequences of the Failed Talks
Many have argued that the failure of a multilateral institution such as WTO would
weaken the bargaining position of the developing countries: they now would have to face
the rich countries in bilateral negotiations. Already, the US has said that they would
2-
continue with their agenda in various bilateral negotiations going on with 14 countries.
This overlooks that the WTO came into existence to provide teeth to the trade regime
through a dispute settlement body and trade sanctions. This, as the US is now discovering
in Iraq, is a lot cheaper than gunboats and cruise missiles. The bilateral deals have their
limits as they neither lock these countries permanently into an unequal position nor have
teeth to impose sanctions. It is this coercive instrument -- among other things — that
distinguishes WTO from the earlier multinational GATT as an institution.
While it is true that WTO allows, in principle, the developing countries to come together
and negotiate, in practice the club of the rich have ensured through their control of the
Secretariat and their ability to split the developing countries that they dictate the
proceedings in WTO. The developing countries therefore had no chance of advancing the
development round, which is what the current Doha round of negotiations is supposedly
all about. Whether the WTO can be used to advance their cause is a moot point today:
what were on the table were further concessions on investments, government
procurement and further cuts in their tariffs. In this context, the best that the developing
countries could hope for was a derailment of Cancun. Without this, there was no way that
their concerns would ever be centre staged in WTO.
In the correlation of forces in Cancun this time, a lot had changed from Doha. In this, the
alliance of 21 countries — the G21 -- should not be underestimated. What has also
changed in WTO is the entry of China. While China did not play a high profile role, the
sheer size of its market and its huge trade surplus with US makes it difficult to push
China around. The unity of G21, which included China, held and they and other
developing countries showed considerable negotiating skills throughout the conference.
The ease with which they dominated the news and tabled alternative drafts took the USEU by surprise. As the South African Minister said that for the first time we were sitting
at the table as equals. And it was deeply disconcerting for the US-EU. Not surprisingly,
Zoellick, the US Trade Representative and Lamy, the EU representative spoke scornfully
of how “can’t do’s won out over can do’s” and “the medieval decision making process of
WTO”.
Many other groupings also formed during Cancun, the one on Singapore issues being the
most important, with Malaysia and India acting as the spokespersons of the group.
Though India was willing to concede on two of the four Singapore issues on trade
facilitation and government procurement — they did not publicly break ranks with others
in the closing stages.
All this does not mean that the developing countries have won a major victory. The
absence of defeat in the current trade regime must itself be recognised as a step forward.
However, Cancun was a Ministerial, the Doha round with all these issues still continue.
What the quad failed to do in Cancun will now sought to be done by bribery and
blackmail. The coercive diplomacy, the threat of bilateral pacts and many other
instruments of pressure will be brought to bear to bring the developing countries to heel.
The war still continues, only a battle has been "won", or more correctly stalemated.
WTO and the Hollow Claims of “Free Trade”
The seeds of the collapse of the Cancun Ministerial were sown well before. The WTO
came into existence in 1995, as a result of a decade of negotiations. It was formed with
the stated objective of establishing “free trade”. As the diehard votaries of the WTO
never tire of telling us, “free trade” is a “win-win” situation for everybody — everybody is
supposed to gain from liberalised trade. The heady euphoria drummed up in favour of
globalisation with the coming into force of the WTO in 1995 and its so-called “rule based
governance” of global markets has now dissipated. Eight short years after the WTO
agreement was signed, people all over the world have realised that the WTO stands, not
for free trade, but for free exploitation of the poor countries and the poor wherever they
live. “Free Trade” has come to mean protection of developed country markets and the
opening of developing country markets.
The WTO, since its inception in 1995, has acted as the battering ram of imperialism. In
the current phase of globalisation, characterised by attempts to integrate capital flows,
markets and production, the WTO has been the moving force in “liberating” the markets
of developing countries for global capital. The first rumblings against the WTO reached a
crescendo in Seattle four years ago when the ministerial meeting there collapsed amidst
street protests and rioting. Two years later, the developed countries tried to salvage
matters in Doha in the backdrop of the so-called “war on terror”. In Doha, a modicum of
developing country unity prevented the full scale launching of a new round that would
link even more issues that pertain to the domestic economy to trade issues unless there
was a consensus on modalities of the negotiations. In Cancun, the developing countries
were able to use this clause in the Doha agreement to thwart the US-EU attempts to start
negotiations immediately.
To understand why the WTO is such a hated institution today, it would be necessary to
go back to the mid eighties when the developed countries, led by the US, hammered
together an agreement that linked trade with issues that were not hitherto considered part
of trade negotiations. The attempt was clearly to use the carrot in the form of enhanced
trade opportunities and the stick in the form of the threat of retaliatory trade sanctions to
make developing countries change domestic policies that prevented the complete
economic hegemony of the developed countries. The WTO, thus, brought within its
ambit issues such as Intellectual Property Rights (Patents, Copyrights, etc.), services
including vital social sectors such as health and education, and investments. The rich
countries had promised the developing world during the Uruguay round of GATT
negotiations that if they opened their market to the rich countries and lowered tariffs,
accepted patent regime favourable to the MNC’s, they would then be allowed access to
the markets of advanced countries for agricultural goods and in areas such as textiles.
Instead, the subsidy given by the rich countries to their farmers and agribusiness has
grown from about $180 billion then to more than $300 billion now. In textiles, even the
limited market accesses promised by the rich countries have not been forthcoming. It has
become apparent that the WTO is tearing down all barriers in developing country
markets, while protecting the developed countries markets.
Even a Jagdish Bhagwati one of the most well-known advocates of free-market
globalisation, states "The process of trade liberalization is becoming a sham," Bhagwati
wrote recently in the Financial Times, "the ultimate objective being the capture,
reshaping and distortion of the WTO in the image of American lobbying interests."
Bhagwati continues," The developing countries are scared out of their wits now because
they don't understand what they're being forced to sign. The agreements are going way
9
outside the trade issues and involve a helluva lot of things like your access to oil, your
access to intellectual property and capital controls "
It is in this context of deep scepticism of the developing countries and the people around
the world regarding WTO that we have to see the Doha round and the Cancun
negotiations.
The “Development Agenda” of WTO Negotiations
The Doha Ministerial in 2001 concluded with the promise of pursuing a “development
agenda” within the WTO. It was ostensibly designed to address the “imbalances” of the
original Uruguay round that favoured developed countries. It may be recalled that the
Doha meeting had ended with the virtual initiation of negotiations on the “Singapore
issues” - essentially non-trade issues that the US and EU wanted introduced into the
WTO for the benefit of global capital subject to explicit consensus on modalities to be
decided in Cancun. However, it was also conceded that issues of vital interest to the
developed countries, such as Agriculture, Textiles, Public Health, etc. would be
addressed expeditiously. Unfortunately, it is precisely on these issues that the least
progress has taken place since Doha. It is now clear that this was a hypocritical assertion
by the rich countries. Further, there has been no discernible progress in the area of
Special and Differentia! Treatment (SDT) -- meant to treat developing countries
differently to cushion the shock of trade liberalisation. Let us take a closer look at how
some of the important issues have unravelled in the run up to the Cancun Ministerial.
Agriculture
The agriculture sector is a stark example of how the WTO rigged its rules to favour the
rich and the powerful. Traditionally, the way the agriculture sector was protected differed
among developed and developing countries. The former protected their agriculture by
providing subsidies — both in cash and through other incentives -- to their farmers.
Further subsidies were made available if the produce was exported. Developing
countries, not being able to provide such subsidies as they were cash strapped, protected
their agricultural market by imposing high duties on imports (tariff barriers) and through
quantitative restrictions — that is by specifying a ceiling on the amount of each product
that could be allowed to be imported. The WTO agreement was so designed that it
targeted the protections of developing countries (by removing quantitative restrictions
and reducing import duties) while allowing the developed countries to maintain their
subsidies. Even the modest reductions that the developed countries were to make in their
subsidies were not adhered to in the last eight years. Instead, the subsidy given by the rich
countries to their farmers and agribusiness has grown from about $180 billion then to
more than $300 billion now. As a result we have a situation today where each farmer in
the US receives a subsidy that is seventy times the income of an average Indian farmer!
The case of cotton, sugar and cattle bring this out most sharply. Under IMF and World
Bank pressures, West African farmers had to shift from food cultivation to a commercial
crop, cotton, so that this could be exported to pay for their loans. The problem they face
today is that cotton prices have collapsed in the global market, as the US pays $3.9 billion
in subsidy for its 25,000 cotton farmers, more than the total worth of this cotton crop.
With this scale of subsidies -- an average of $160,000 per farmer — they can afford to
dump their products in the world market. This has dealt a body blow to the West African
cotton farmers, who cannot even survive on the prices they get from the market. Similarly
in sugar, the amount of subsidy that EU gives its farmers to grow beet is higher than the
price of the entire surplus sugar of the developing countries. The rich countries pay $2
per head of cattle to its cattle growers, more than the per capita income of the farmers in
most of the developing countries keeping life stock.
Such subsidies not only keep a local political constituency happy but also help
agribusiness: they are able to buy cheap and capture the global markets, as others cannot
compete at these prices. Their ability to capture the global market has nothing to do with
efficiency of production or costs: it is simply a reflection of the level of subsidy. Not only
is the US and EU not willing to lower subsidies except cosmetically, they also have
argued that a large part of their subsidies are non-trade distorting. The Agreement on
Agriculture (AoA) divides domestic subsidies into “amber”, “blue” and “green” boxes, in
which blue and green box subsidies are held to be non-trade distorting. The "Amber
Box", consists of subsidies that are seen as trade distorting, and have to be reduced. The
"Green Box" subsidies are for production restructuring and direct payments not linked to
production, and "Blue Box" subsidies, are not linked to current production but to past
production or areas. The unscrupulous and manipulative nature of the GATT negotiations
is clear from the fact that the so called trade distorting subsidies were the kind that the
developing countries were providing (and hence were phased out) while those that the
developed countries provided were supposed to be non-trade distorting (and hence could
be retained)! The developing countries were conned into this division of subsidies into
so-called trade distorting and non-trade distorting subsidies in the Uruguay round and are
only now arguing for bringing all subsidies in agriculture on the negotiating table.
Unfortunately, having given up quantitative restrictions then, they have weakened their
own bargaining position considerably. Without getting back QRs, they are unlikely to
win major concessions or be able to protect their agriculture.
In the run up to Cancun, the US and EU held their own negotiations in mid August to try
and unify their positions. The Harbinson draft (Harbinson was chairing the Agriculture
section of the Doha negotiations) had attempted to address the issues of export subsidies
and credits and the Blue Box subsidies, even if they were inadequate and did not touch
Green Box subsidies. The US-EU draft did not even recognise these issues. The entire
thrust of their draft proposals was to allow for shifting of the subsidies from one box to
another. On other issues, they wanted steep cuts in the tariff protection of the developing
countries while making very few concessions on their side. Their thrust was to provide
high tariffs to prevail for a few items that will be designate as trade sensitive, allow for
steep cuts in tariffs for most other items (non-linear tariff cuts, i.e., the higher the tariff,
the steeper the cut) and have zero to five per cent tariffs on certain items. As northern
agriculture has a less number of varieties, protection of a small number of items would
still maintain their high tariffs for their products. Southern agriculture spans across a very
large number of varieties; they would have to undertake sharp reductions. In general, the
developing countries have a higher level of tariff protection if we take all products into
consideration. Obviously, they would then have to open their markets significantly while
still being unable to access the markets of the rich countries, which would be protected by
high tariffs.
Though US-EU came to an agreement on how they would face the developing countries,
they had some significant differences with each other. The most important difference is
with respect to genetically modified (GM) crops. ELI has been opposing the introduction
of GM crops, though more on health and environmental grounds. To the developing
countries, GM crops and TRIPS lead to agribusiness monopoly of seeds and through this,
the control of their agriculture. The US would perhaps be willing to reduce subsidies
more than EU provided all restrictions on GM crops are removed.
The response to the agricultural agreement reached by the US and EU was 17 developing
countries (which later expanded to the G21) quickly getting together and producing a
counter proposal to the US-EU draft. They showed how the US-EU draft only addressed
their internal differences and allowed each other loopholes for escaping commitments
that would address the concern of the developing countries. Their major concern was that
by allowing green box subsidies to continue without capping or reduction, the entire
exercise of reducing subsidies would become a meaningless game of shifting boxes. They
were also sharply critical that the US-EU did not even consider the needs of the poorest
of developing countries and provide mechanism for some Special and Differential
treatment to them. The 17-member draft was also careful to make proposals that would
align the Cairns group of agriculture exporting countries (Australia, New Zealand,
Argentina, etc.), which wanted ending subsidies and lower tariffs, with it rather against it.
The Cairns group later responded that their positions were complementary and not
antagonistic to the G21 countries.
The reaction from EU to the 17-nation proposal was a violent one. The EU representative
accused the co-sponsors of “confrontation, South-North conflict, “all take and no give”
and “aiming at the stars in order to get the moon.” While the US was publicly more
restrained, quite willing to have the EU spearhead the fight against G21, the stage for a
fundamental North South divide on agriculture had already been set for Cancun.
Textiles
On issues such as textiles that are particularly important for India, Cancun had nothing to
offer. The Multi Fibre Agreement had fixed export quotas for countries such as India for
the US and EU markets. The US and the EU admitted that their domestic industries were
not competitive and wanted this protection to continue for 10 years. In this period, they
were supposed to slowly scale down this protection to zero. Unfortunately, the rich
countries have refused to honour this commitment and are using various measures to
continue to protect their textile industry. While this is still a part of the on-going Doha
round, it was not on the Cancun agenda.
Special and Differential Treatment
Special and Differential Treatment implies that developing countries be exempted from
obligations, or be able to choose their own rate of implementing the obligations, or
having a lower level of obligations vis-a-vis the different provisions of the WTO. There
has been no movement in this area. The rich countries claim that this has happened
because developing countries have been unable to define areas where they wish to avail
of such treatment. In practice, they have subverted every attempt to do so. What should
have been central to the Doha round has instead become its forgotten agenda.
Singapore Issues
It may be recalled that the Doha meeting of the WTO had ended with the virtual setting
up of a new round of negotiations, with the rider that the modalities will need an explicit
consensus. While developing countries had opposed this, the agenda was finally pushed
through on the last day of the meeting. The new issues (also called Singapore issues as
they were first introduced at the Singapore Ministerial meeting of the WTO in 1997) are:
(i) trade and investment, (ii) trade and competition policy; (iii) trade and government
procurement, and (iv) trade facilitation. These issues are designed to deepen and intensify
the predation of global capital and deny the domestic economy of those instruments that
the developed countries themselves have applied in their earlier phase of development.
The common theme of three of the issues (investment, competition, government
procurement) is maximisation of the rights of foreign enterprises to secure access to
markets in developing countries; to reduce rights of sovereign governments to regulate
foreign investors; and to prohibit governments from measures that support or encourage
local enterprises. If these agreements form part of the WTO, developing countries will
find it increasingly difficult to devise their own policies for self-reliant development. The
developed countries will press for the principle of “national treatment” to be applied to
these new areas, which would mean that developing countries would no longer be
allowed to support their local industries. These issues do not belong in the WTO as they
are not issues that are directly related to trade. The developed countries want to place
them in the WTO so that they can use the mechanisms of trade sanctions to enforce rules
that suit their interests.
On the investment issue, the rich countries want to introduce rules that make it legal to
give foreign investors the right to enter and establish themselves with 100 per cent
ownership. Governments then will lose the right to regulate investments in the national
interest or to protect for example, the environment, education and health sectors — both
in the long term and in the short term.
Under the proposed ‘Agreement on Government Procurement Policy’ the developed
countries wants to introduce a process in the WTO whereby their companies are able to
obtain a large share of the lucrative business of providing supplies to and winning
contracts for projects of the public sector in the developing countries. The aim is to bring
government spending policies, decisions and procedures of all member countries under
the umbrella of the WTO such that the governments would no longer be able to give
preferences or advantages to citizens or local firms.
Privatisation in different sectors will also be facilitated under the proposed ‘Agreement
on Competition Policy’. Member states ‘will have to consider making reforms to their
regulatory regimes’ such that national regulations should have four central attributes:
adequacy, impartiality, least intrusiveness and transparency towards corporate interests.
Distinctions that favour local firms and investors would not be allowed. If smaller
country enterprises are treated on par with the large foreign conglomerates, they would
not be able to survive. The North will insist that their giant firms be provided a ‘level
playing field’ to compete equally with smaller domestic companies. Competition of this
type will invariably lead to foreign monopolisation of Southern markets.
Even the area of trade facilitation, while seemingly innocuous, is fraught with problems
for developing countries. The establishment of multilateral rules in this area will make it
difficult for developing countries to adhere to the standards or procedures envisaged. The
main objective of an agreement in this area is to have uniform rules and procedures. Such
an approach totally ignores the wide difference in the administrative, financial and human
resources between the developed countries and developing countries.
These issues became the major bone of contention in Cancun, especially as the EU and
US insisted on them being negotiated while refusing to give in to developing country
demands in agriculture. The inclusion of these issues in any future negotiations in the
WTO should be resisted, as they constitute a further assault on sovereign rights of
countries to regulate their economies. They should never, in the first place, have been
brought on to the agenda of the WTO.
Non-Agricultural Market Access" (NAMA)
The NAMA issues are of vital concern to countries such as India that have an industrial
base. Without addressing the central concern of the developing countries that there has
been de-industrialisation in the developing countries as a result of lowering tariff
protection in the Uruguay round, the rich countries have pushed for wider and steeper
cuts in the Doha round. The Cancun draft text reflected largely the quad interest of
opening the developing countries even further. Not only was the number of items on
which tariff should be lowered sought to be widened, the principle of non-linear cuts
where higher the tariff, steeper the cut was also proposed. Further, the draft text sought to
bind (fix ceilings) for currently unbound lines and also proposed that these also should be
subjected to the non-linear formulae. And the draft rejected the developing countries
demand that which sectors should be opened should be left to a voluntary approach,
insisting instead that seven or more sectors should aim for accelerated reduction of tariff
to zero and this would be mandatory.
GATS: Targeting The Services Sector
While not a major negotiating issue in Cancun, the General Agreement on Trade in
Services (GATS) continues to be another area that the developed countries are preparing
to use to prise open the economies of developing countries. The full contours of the
GATS agreement are yet to be filled out, but negotiations are now fairly advanced.
Historically trade agreements involved reducing tariffs, eliminating trade barriers like
quotas on imports on goods produced in a country and sold elsewhere. Trade related
issues are therefore related to what happens at the boundaries of nations. The Singapore
issues discussed earlier and GATS are however related to the sovereign economic space
of the country where the laws of that country operate. By opening them to multilateral
negotiations, the rich countries are denying of the developing countries to use specific
levers such as capital restrictions, favour domestic industry, encourage industrialization,
protect its labour force and so on. The other thrust behind inclusion of Singapore issues
and GATS is the decline in developed countries of manufacture and the growth of their
service sector. Presently, the services sectors are growing at the fastest rates in these
countries. The service sectors account for two thirds of economy and jobs in the
European Union (EU), almost a quarter of the EU’s total exports and a half of all foreign
investment flowing from the Union to other parts of the world. In the US, more than a
third of economic growth over the past five years has been because of service exports.
As the service sectors of the economies of developed countries grew, exports of various
types of services increased. Multinational Corporations started lobbying for new trading
rules that will expand their share of the global market in services as governments
everywhere spend a considerable amount of their budget on social services. This is what
the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) under the WTO is targeting today.
GATS covers some 160 separate sectors, including areas such as services in the
professions, health and education.
The GATS as in all the other agreements contains provisions which allow further
deregulation of any national legislation which is seen to be hostile to free trade. GATS
identify the specific commitments of member states that indicate on a sector-by-sector
basis the extent foreigners’ may supply services in the country. The negotiating process
in GATS allows for countries to decide, through ‘request offer’ negotiations, which
service sectors they will agree to cover under GATS rules. This refers to the extent to
which member states want their services like health and education to be open up to free
trade.
In the Third World, much of private services in areas like health and education were
provided by non-governmental organisations like charities, religious societies and
community oriented associations, which were not entirely profit driven. This will change
when with the new dispensation and the corporate sector is poised to play a prominent
role especially in countries where there is an affluent elite willing to pay or where there
exists a private base in these areas: like in India. This move to open up the social sectors
to allow for privatisation and competition from the private sector will mean private
corporations taking over the social services of countries for profit, undermining their
equitable distribution.
If developing countries commit to fully cover social sectors like education and health
under the existing GATS rules, this will lead to irreversible changes in the financing and
delivery of these services. Governments will have to open up these sectors to foreign
service providers. Foreign providers will be guaranteed access to the services market,
which includes the right to invest, to provide these services from abroad and to send
professionals to practice. Any preferential treatment for local institutions will have to be
eliminated or given to foreign service providers. Requirements that first preference be
given to locals will be eliminated. Conditions must be created for the private sector to
provide or supply any service; the private sector will effectively tap funds that the
government spends on social sectors.
The Indian Government has shown itself to be amenable to commit many areas in the
service sector for negotiations under GATS. The argument put forward is that this will
help the fast growing service sector in the country. Even areas like health are being seen
as lucrative areas that could be opened up to take advantage of the cost advantage that
high-end health services in India have as compared to that in developed countries. Such
an argument entirely negates the fact that areas such as health and education are “public
goods” and submitting these to trade negotiations compromises the ability of the state to
intervene in these areas. Unfortunately this view of the Indian state is in line with its
10
10
policy of withdrawing from providing social security. Moreover it legitimises the
privatisation and liberalisation that is already taking place in areas such as insurance,
telecommunications, transport, education and health. The argument is that if anyway we
are committed to liberalising in these areas, what is the harm in committing these areas
under GATS. Other than the fact that this “autonomous liberalisation” is already
consigning millions of people to the mercy of the market in vita! areas, it should also be
understood that there is a basic difference between autonomous liberalisation and
committing these areas to the discipline of GATS. While liberalisation that is done by
governments can be “rolled back” this facility will not be available once specific areas
are committed under GATS as part of a multilateral agreement. We will, thus, end up by
binding vital areas of our social and industrial infrastructure to rules that will be dictated
by the developed countries.
Public Health Charade in Geneva
As the Cancun Ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation drew near, a charade
was played out in the name of public health. In end August, the TRIPS Council of WTO
endorsed an agreement in Geneva that theoretically allowed the poor countries to import
cheap drugs that were still under Patents but bound them in red tape in away that the
provision would virtually be useless.
In 2001 the Doha declaration on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and
Public Health had required that a solution be found that would enable countries with no
manufacturing capabilities to import drugs at low prices that may be produced in
countries like India. In the last two years, the global pharmaceutical majors, with the
support of the US government, had systematically scuttled all proposals designed to
ensure this.
The Doha declaration had said: “We recognize that WTO Members -with insufficient or no
manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could face difficulties in making
effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS Agreement. We instruct the
Council for TRIPS to find an expeditious solution to this problem and to report to the
General Council before the end of 2002”. Most developing countries, unlike India, have
no manufacturing capability. So the TRIPS agreement (and the clarification in the Doha
declaration) did not enable them to access cheaper drugs because they cannot get these
drugs produced cheaply in their country even if a compulsory license can be granted.
Subsequently, for almost two years now, the TRIPS Council has been supposedly
grappling with this issue. Some international NGOs (like Medecens Sans Frontieres and
Oxfam) had proposed that a way to get around the above problem would be for the
TRIPS council to give an “authoritative interpretation” that exports to countries with no
manufacturing capability would be deemed as “exception to patentability” (under
Article 30 of TRIPS) and could be done automatically without authorisation from the
original patentee. This would have meant that a company in India could be granted a
licence to produce a patented drug that is required for a country in Africa, which has no
manufacturing capability. The import of this drug from the Indian manufacturer would
not then constitute a violation of the TRIPS accord.
The developed countries, led by the US, and including the European Union, Japan,
Canada and Switzerland, however, refused to consider this and other suggestions
II
designed to address this issue for the last two years. The argument put forward by the US
and its allies was that this would allow companies in India and other developing countries
with manufacturing ability to circumvent the TRIPS accord and manufacture patented
drugs. The developed countries have also expressed the fear that once these patented
drugs are manufactured under a licence and enter the market, there is no guarantee that
they would not find there way to other countries, for whom the exports were not
intended. Therefore, the US has been arguing that the number of diseases that is covered
by this facility should be restricted to a handful: only a few infectious diseases like
HIV/AIDS, Malaria, T.B., etc., and should not cover diseases such as heart disease,
diabetes, etc. Further the US wanted that the TRIPS council should have the powers to
decide which disease(s) constitutes an emergency in a particular country. It further
wanted strict procedures and special labelling that would monitor the export of each
consignment that is imported, to ensure that the drug is used only for the purpose for
which it was licensed.
The US proposal clearly prompted by its pharmaceutical lobby (there are more lobbyists
for the pharmaceutical industry in Washington than there are Congressmen!), was an
obvious attempt to make this part of the Doha Declaration entirely useless. The Doha
Declaration had clearly stated that individual countries have the right to decide what
constitutes a national public health emergency or a matter of urgency. The US proposal
wanted to take this right away from sovereign countries. Moreover the Doha declaration
had not set a limit on the number or the kind of diseases that would be covered by the
facility. Further, the US proposal that each consignment would be monitored, seeks to put
in place regulatory mechanisms that would be overseen not by the sovereign countries,
but by a supranational body that derives authority from the TRIPS Council. In other
words, if the US proposal were to be agreed upon, the TRIPS council would have powers
to “police” local legislations — a power that even the TRIPS accord does not provide for.
So the Doha Declaration, far from increasing the scope of flexibilities available for
developing countries, would be turned into an instrument for greater control of national
legislations by the WTO.
The intransigent attitude of the US delayed the formulation of any discussion text that
would be acceptable to all countries. Finally on December 16, 2002, a draft was
circulated in the TRIPS Council meeting. This draft, known as the Motta text (called so
after the Mexican Ambassador to the WTO Eduardo Perez Motta, who was instrumental
in drafting the document) was supposed to be a compromise document. Not surprisingly,
given the WTO record for such drafts, this so-called compromise document, actually was
designed to accommodate virtually, all the demands made by the developed countries.
While the EU and other developed countries supported this draft, the US contributed to
the drama by rejecting even this compromise document. The Motta Text constituted a
total dilution of the spirit of the Doha Declaration on Public Health. The question that
could then be asked is, if the text was so restrictive and biased in favour of developed
countries, why did the US not agree to it?
Possibly, the answer is to be found in the manner in which the discussion on the Motta
Text proceeded after the US decided to oppose it. The emphasis shifted from finding a
better solution than the Motta text to attempts to “save” the Motta Text. The focus shifted
from how bad the Motta text actually was to start with, to the apparent success of getting
the US to agree and tom-toming this as a great victory for the poor countries. The US
would have got something in return for doing nothing!
And this is exactly what finally happened. The text agreed upon in Geneva in August is
not very different from the original Motta Text. The only concession that the developing
countries were able to win was that there was no explicit limit on the number of diseases
for which the provisions of the agreement could be used. But the whole agreement is so
restrictive, that it makes use of its provisions virtually unworkable. In some ways it goes
far beyond the TRIPS agreement by allowing a supervisory role to the TRIPS Council in
deciding which drugs can be imported and which countries are qualified to use the
facility. For a country like India, whose interest would lie in its ability to export cheaper
versions of Patented drugs to other developing countries, the agreement is actually a step
back from the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement (under Art. 31(f)) allows
Patented drugs to be produced under a compulsory license by other manufacturers, which
should be sold “predominantly in the domestic market”. In other words the TRIPS
Agreement allowed drugs produced under a compulsory license to be exported. The new
agreement makes this more difficult by introducing another layer of supervision by the
TRIPS Council.
The Public Health Agreement just before Cancun was hailed by the US and EU as a
major concession for developing countries. They had hoped that this would allow them to
extract concessions from developing countries in other areas in Cancun. Fortunately,
developing countries realised that the Public Health Agreement did not give them
anything, and thus refused to allow it to be used as a bargaining chip at Cancun.
Unfortunately this realisation came too late to salvage the agreement on public health.
One intriguing question is why did the Indian Government not fight harder on this issue?
It must be understood that the Indian pharmaceutical companies do not think of the poor
African countries as a major market: they are not willing to buck the US and EU on this
issue as they are far more interested in the lucrative generic markets of the developing
countries. That is why the Indian Government was lukewarm at best in opposing the
scuttling of the public health provisions of Doha.
WTO Decision Making and Role of the Secretariat
The WTO structure and decision making has come up for sharp criticism from all sides.
The US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick, at his post-Cancun press conference
declared: “if countries want to behave like in the UN and only make demands instead of
negotiations, making inflammatory rhetoric, then trade negotiations are not possible.”
This is a position that has been echoed by other developed countries. On the other hand,
developing countries continue to point at the complete dominance of the viewpoints of
rich countries in the drafts and decisions in the WTO. The major change that has taken
place in WTO from that of its predecessor GATT is that it has increasingly become
Secretariat and Chairperson driven instead of member driven. General Council or group
Chairs, with the help of the Secretariat, produce drafts what in their view should be the
“consensus” and not what the countries say during the consultations. These drafts
predominantly reflect the viewpoint of the US and EU, the block of the rich. This is
coupled with developed countries arm-twisting countries and their ministers/
ambassadors to agree to the so-called consensus draft.
If this were not enough, WTO routinely uses Green Rooms where selected delegations
are herded in and asked to submit to the dictates of the rich countries. This "agreement"
in such smaller gatherings is used to ask the general council to submit to a "consensus".
Any country that stands up is threatened with bilateral action or courted secretly with
carrots.
The run-up to Cancun continued with all the ingredients that have made WTO so
unpopular for the developing countries. The text for Cancun was produced on Sunday,
24lh August by Ambassador. Castillo of Uruguay, who then asked for responses from the
country delegations by Monday 25lh. The draft refused to recognise the development
issues that were projected in Doha. In agriculture, Green Box subsidies were not touched
and Blue Box subsidies were actually increased for countries such as the US Export
credits and subsidies committed to be brought down to zero within a time bound period in
Doha were allowed to continue indefinitely. All "concessions" for the developing
countries in terms of special and differential treatment was left to the "best endeavours"
of countries and not as binding commitments. Deep across the board cuts were proposed
in agriculture and for industry, with higher Swiss formulae of non-linear cuts (the higher
tariff, the deeper the cut) being proposed. Finally, on Singapore issues, through the draft
recognised two alternate positions — one for an immediate start to negotiations and the
other for continuing further studies on these issues -- but the Castillo draft only included
the Annexures from the US-EU position and not that of the developing countries. This
despite about 90 countries stating that Singapore issues needed to be studied further and
no negotiations should start.
On addressing the special problems of countries hit by the Uruguay round, the draft had
not only nothing to offer, it virtually reduced this concern, supposedly the major focus in
Doha to a footnote in the negotiating draft.
From the beginning, the EU has been playing a game in WTO. It was prepared to discuss
agriculture provided the developing countries were willing to start negotiation on
Singapore issues. The Castillo text also linked the Singapore issues to the negotiations on
agriculture.
The Castillo draft drew a sharp reaction from the delegations. Country after country
criticized the draft and asked Castillo to incorporate their views in the draft. All such
suggestions, including that of the G-17 (by that time G19) were rejected, Castillo
claiming he preferred a clear text and changes should be a part of the Cancun
negotiations.
The question is how are drafts and such texts to be made? Why do the developed
countries persist with a secretariat or a chairperson driven agenda? The answer to this is
that the rich countries wield disproportionate influence over the WTO Secretariat though
the Secretariat is headed by a Director General from Thailand, one of the developing
countries. In practice the Secretariat is very much under the US-EU influence and plays a
key role incorporating the US-EU texts as the "draft texts" for discussions. No amount of
criticism from the developing countries has managed to change the stranglehold that the
rich countries exert over the process. Similarly, a chairperson driven draft discussion text
allows the rich countries to either bully or win over by other means the chairpersons.
Individual countries are far more vulnerable to such bullying, while individuals are open
not only to pressure but to blandishments and indirect bribery as well. Once such a text is
put forward, the rich countries get into the act of isolating the opposition and bringing to
heel the rest. Delegate after delegates have given first hand accounts of such tactics.
Finally, those that hold out are termed as "spoilers" and singled out for economic and
political blackmail.
The rich countries therefore want that the process of creating such drafts be opaque and
narrowly located. If is always easier to coerce the few and then browbeat the rest. That is
why the WTO process remains the only one in such international bodies that is without
procedures and modalities for preparing documents.
Coupled with this completely non-transparent and behind the scenes procedure, is the
brinkmanship that these countries are playing in WTO. The drafts are released at the last
minute, translations are quite often not available and a number of consultations held
simultaneously. The result is that smaller countries are at a disadvantage: they neither
have the expertise nor the numbers to look at complex drafts within the few hours given
to them. Neither are they consulted during the process of creating the drafts, which is
generally a closed exercise between the Secretariat, the Chairpersons and a privileged set
of countries. Cancun was no different; in fact the partisan nature of the Secretariat and the
brinkmanship practised by the rich countries was even greater here.
Observers have called the brinkmanship practiced in which the actual negotiating
position is exposed at the last minute as "political blackjack". Undoubtedly, amongst
other things this political blackjack also backfired in Cancun as concessions given were
too little and too late.
Conclusions
Where do we go from Cancun? There have been two kinds of responses to WTO, both of
which to our mind are problematic. One set of experts have argued that WTO represents
the best bet for the developing countries. Any weakening of this multilateral sector,
according to these experts, would expose the developing countries to only bilateral fora
and a far greater degree of pressure there. Much of these arguments could have had merit
if these experts did not also preach submission in WTO to the dictates of the rich. If the
developing countries in order not to submit bilaterally, have to submit to deals in such
multilateral forum that are going to ruin them anyway, it seems to be an argument for
accepting the death sentence and only choosing the mode of execution. This approach
fundamentally refuses to look at the way the WTO is functioning. The WTO, unless it
becomes a more democratic institution, open to the views of the developing countries,
will continue to be another platform where the rich countries attempt to impose unequal
obligations on the developing world.
If countries such as India are not to submit to the dictates of the rich, is their only option
to walk out of WTO? Here again, two sets of arguments (not mutually exclusive) are
advanced on quitting WTO. One is based on localism: the self-reliant village economy
(the tribal or forest) is the ideal. Here the enemy is perceived to be globalisation itself,
with imperialism as only another name for globalisation. The other view supporting the
quitting of WTO is that Indian economy (and other developing countries economies) is
perceived to be neo-colonial: quitting WTO is in some sense seen to be freedom from
imperialism. In this view, the rulers of the developing countries are seen to be lackeys of
imperialism and therefore incapable of fighting imperialism even in a limited sense.
In reality, such views - whether the one advocating submission in WTO or the one
demanding leaving WTO - disregard the possibility of resistance within WTO against the
onslaught of global capital. The Cancun Ministerial shows that the local and global
resistance to global capital and imperialism is possible. The pressure of the people on
their governments is mounting and the manoeuvrability of these governments is getting
more and more circumscribed. As one African Government is suppose to have told its
minister that if you come back after signing this draft, you need bother coming back,
people will throw you out. Jaitley also conceded in private that while economically India,
he felt, could concede on lowering of agricultural tariffs, politically it was difficult.
The issue here is not whether WTO can be reformed but using the WTO also as a terrain
of struggle. If WTO continues as an instrument of global capital, it will de-legitimise
itself. Therefore, the fight is for either de-legitimising WTO or dismantling it. Leaving it
intact while we walk out of it is to put oneself at an even greater disadvantage of
negotiating bilateral agreements with all the countries separately.
The US has already made its intentions clear. The US Trade representative Robert
Zoellick said at the post conference press conference: “T/re U.S. trade strategy, however,
includes advances on multiple fronts. We have free trade agreements with six countries
right now. And we’re negotiating free trade agreements with 14 more. All our free trade
agreement partners, some quietly, some more actively, tried to help over the course of the
past couple of days. The results are very revealing to me, that over the past few days, a
number of other developing countries, that are committed to opening markets and
economic reforms, expressed their interest in negotiating free trade agreements with the
United States".
What Zoellick basically said is that if the WTO does not allow the US to ride roughshod
over other countries it will do so by negotiating with individual countries or smaller
groups of countries. Through agreements such as the NAFTA (North American Free
Trade Agreement) and the FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) the US is
already seeking to impose conditions on its neighbouring countries that are far more
onerous than what is demanded of by the WTO. The opposition to such arm-twisting, in
order to be effective, would require a strengthening of the developing country unity that
was seen in Cancun.
The Cancun derailment, thus, by no means implies a victory of the developing countries
or the people. It is at best a temporary reprieve as the rich and powerful band together to
try and win through behind the scenes manoeuvre what they could not win in Cancun.
The three months cooling off period before the negotiations start again will be used to
blackmail or arm-twist the ringleaders. Jaitley’s position was that we were close to an
agreement: India was willing to concede on two of the Singapore issues and negotiate on
the rest. The people will need to mount pressure on the Indian Government that they
stand firm and not yield in Geneva what the rich countries could not secure in Cancun.
References:
I 6
It would be difficult to identify all the references we have used for this article. Most of
the background material has been taken from three websites that have extensive coverage
of WTO issues. These three and the Delhi Science Forum website where our earlier
articles on this issue are archived are given below:
1.
Third World Network: http://www.twnside.org.sg/
Martin Khor’s and Chakravarti Raghvan’s backgrounders and articles have written
extensively on the run-up to Cancun and the course of the negotiations. The briefing
documents have been extremely useful.
2.
Focus on the Global South: http://www.focusweb.org/
Walden Bello, Nicola Bullard, Aileen Kwa, Raghav Narsalay and Shalmali Guttal have
written a number of articles on Cancun and the Doha round of discussions.
3.
Macroscan, an Alternate Economic Webcentre: http://www.macroscan.com/
The articles by C.P.Chandrasekhar, Jayati Ghosh, Prabhat Patnaik and Utsa Patnaik
provide not only information but also an analytical framework to understand the WTO
issues.
4.
Delhi Science Forum: http:/www.delhiscienceforum.org/
We are also grateful for the help we have received from S.P.Shukla, the Convenor of the
WTO Virodhi Jan Abhiyan, whose writings and discussions have helped clarify a number
of issues for us.
1^-
OXFAM TRUST
B-55, First Floor, Shivalik,
Near Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi 110 017.
Tel: 26693763
E-mail: oxfamindia@vsnl.net
oxfamtrust_india@hotmail.com
4 December, 2003
Dear Friends,
Sub:
Fifth Ministerial of the WTO: Post Cancun Lessons and Challenges for
Civil Society
In continuation to our National Consultation organized in August 24-25, 2003 before
the Cancun Ministerial, we would like to share the lessons learnt at Cancun and
chalk out a strategy for the future for Civil Society Organisations. A demand to hold
these king of Consultations rose in the August Meeting itself from many participants
who were present. In this connection we are holding a one day Consultation on
Thursday, 18"' December, 2003 in Bangalore. PAIRVI and Oxfam Trust New
Delhi are jointly organizing this Consultation. EQUATIONS has kindly agreed Io be
the local host.
Knowing your deep interest in the subject, we would like to invite you for the
Consultation and look forward to your inputs and suggestions towards formulation of
a post Cancun Agenda for Civil Society, i am also enclosing a copy of the draft
Agenda for your information.
Modest accommodation will be provided at UTC, the venue of the Consultation and
we expect the participants to organize their own travel and other related expenses.
We would be grateful if you could confirm your participation in any one of the
following addresses by 10 December, 2003. This will help us with the logistics.
Oxfam Trust
B-55 Shivalik, New Delhi - 110 017
Ph: 26693763
Email: oxfamtrust lndia@hctmail.com
oxfamindia@vsiil.net
EQUATIONS
23/25 8"' Cross
Vignan Nagar
New Thippasandra Post
Bangalore
Ph: 5244988/5344149
Email: benny@equitabletourism.org
Looking forward to your participation,
Best regards,
Sincerely,
Madhusree Banerjee
Program Manager
If you have already acknowledged this mail please ignore it.
Oxfam Trust fights poverty and injustice in India and around the world using India's own resources
Oxfam Trust in India is a part of Oxfam International
Registration Number 881/IV, New Delhi
Fifth Ministerial of the WTO: Post Cancun Lessons and Challenges for Civil
Society
Bangalore. December 13, 2003
Organised by
Oxfam (India) Trust, New Delhi and EQUATIONS, Bangalore
TENTATIVE AGENDA’
8.30 am to 9.30 am:
9.30 am to 9.45 am:
9.45 am to 10.25 am:
10.25 am to 10.30 am:
10.30 am to 10.50 am:
10.50 am to 11.10 am:
11.10 am to 11.30 am:
11.30 am to 11.50am:
11.50 am to 11.55am:
11,55am to 12.15 pm:
12.15 pm to 12.35 pm:
12.35 pm to 1.00 pm:
1.00 pm to 2.00 pm:
2.00 pm to 2.05 pm:
2.05 pm to 2.25 pm:
2.25 pm to 2.45 pm:
2.45 pm to 3.05 pm:
3.05 pm to 3.10 pm:
3.10 pm to 3.30 pm:
3.30 pm to 3.50 pm:
3.50 pm to 4.15pm:
4.30 pm to 5.15 pm:
Registration
Welcome and Objectives of the Consultation
Keynote Address: Mr. S.P. Shukla
Session II: AGRICULTURE
Chair's Opening Remarks
India's position at Cancun on agriculture-Devinder Sharma
Farmers' perspective on AOA- Prof.
Nanjundaswamy
TEA BREAK
Discussion
SESSION III: SINGAPORE ISSUES
Chair’s opening remarks
Developmental Impact of FDI - Kavaljit Singh
Singapore issues & sovereign policy space-Raghav Narsalay
Discussion
LUNCH BREAK
SESSION IV: TRIPS
Chair's opening remarks
Peoples Right to Health - Ravi Narayan
TRIPS revision & Implementation - Amit Sengupta
Discussion
SESSION V: SERVICES
Chair's opening remarks
GATS negotiations post Cancun and India’s position Benny Kuruvilla
Right to Water & GATS - Dr. Janakrajan
TEA BREAK & Discussion
Political Parties stand & OPEN FORUM
Political Parties:
• Congress (I)
•
BJP
• CPI (M)
• CPI ???
• Janata Party/Dal
• Trade Unions
• Industry Reps- FICCI/ Cll
Please note that the names of the speakers are proposed and they are yet to confirm.
EG- l.b.
Globalisation and Bhopal Agenda
Dalit intelligentsia prepared the Bhopal declaration, a 21-point charter of demands, under
the auspices of the Government of Madhyapradesh in the Bhopal conference held on
January 12, 2002. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Aditya Nigam and several other intellectuals
had described the Bhopal declaration as “The new dalit agenda, "one of the most creative
responses to the emerging challenges of the new global order” and so on. To understand
what is ‘new’ and ‘creative’ in this new agenda we have to analyse the Bhopal document,
the base text, prepared by the Madhya Pradesh Government and the Bhopal declaration
finalised by the Dalit intelligentsia.
The Bhopal agenda
Above 300 odd dalit intellectuals and activists collected from various parts of the country
discussed the Bhopal document and prepared the 21-point Bhopal declaration. The
charter of 21 demands include democratization of capital, diversity in all public
institutions of India, diversity of workforce in all private industries/corporate houses,
affirmative action programs in all private institutions including industries and corporate
sector, supplier diversity and dealership diversity in all goods and services, high quality
education to all dalits, elimination of manual scavenging, the restoration of alienated land
to the tribals, 5 acres of land to each dalit family, implementation of Bonded Labor
(Abolition ) Act and SC,ST Atrocities (prevention) Act and so on. The Bhopal
declaration presented some new demands in the context of Globalization of the Indian
economy including the many long-standing demands of the Dalit movement. Demands
such as democratization of capital, diversity of workforce in private sector, affirmative
action in all private institutions and supplier and dealership diversity in all goods and
services, the admirers of the Bhopal agenda argued, moved the debate on caste beyond
the limited framework of reservation in the public sector. It is suggested that for the first
time, dalits are demanding a share in the market to make dalits millionaires and
billionaires.
1 would focus my discussion on these ‘new’ demands, as they are central to understand
the politics of what is popularly known as the Bhopal agenda. Chandrabhan Prasad, the
noted dalit intellectual and the person who drafted the dalit agenda section in the Bhopal
document explicitly states, “ The SC/, STs will have to keep in mind that the community
[dalit] is unlikely to capture the political power on its own. -the community must
recognize the fundamental nature of its existence; that is of being a social minority... The
SC/STs must, therefore, look for a ‘a share in the political power structure... ” P59.
Chandra Bhan rules out the very possibility of capturing political power by the Dalits. He
abandons the agenda of the political power, which has been one of the issues in the
agenda of the dalit movements for a longtime in some form or the other. He clearly lays
out terms of the debate for the preparation of the Bhopal agenda. Dalit intellectuals have
to draft a declaration of the Dalit rights in the framework of the emerging market
economy of the country. Given the predefined framework, Dalitlntellectuals had little
space to add their own demands market economy. It is not surprising that we find no
discussion or even mention of the devastating impact of the imperialist globalization on
the Indian society - particularly the oppressed castes in the Bhopal Document or in the
Bhopal agenda. We find no statement about the anti-dalit, anti-people nature of the
globalization. We find no discussion of struggles of the past or even discussion of plans
for the future struggles. Surprisingly, the American capitalist state emerged as a model
for the liberation of Dalits in India.
The American model
Chandrabhan Prasad invokes the American model of democracy and society in the
Bhopal document when he says. “The US has evolved into thriving democracy ...
American society is now an enthusiastic advocate and practitioner of equal opportunity,
affirmative action and diversity policies in sphere of life.” p67. It has been demonstrated
that the enormous but still very unevenly distributed advances made by African'.
Americans owe nothing to the free market but to their intense struggles in 1960s, and
70s.lt has been pointed out that the tax cuts of the Regan Administration of the 198084and1984-88 devastated the Black community. The Clinton Administration did not
reverse these measures. It is too simplistic, ahistorical and naive to believe that the
American State is honest and pro-black.
I wish to digress a bit and discuss the differences between the American model of
affirmative action programmes and Indian reservation system in India. Dalit intellectuals
seem to suggest that we may shift to the American affirmative action programmes
abandoning the Indian reservation system.
The American affirmative action programmes are a set of anti-discrimination laws and
diversity programmes. They are voluntary in nature and are introduced by the Business
houses out of a sense of loss of their reputation. They are not mandatory programmes.
Where as the Indian reservation system is mandatory and guaranteed by the constitutional
prescription. The American model will be harmful to the Dalits in India. The Indian state
and its bureaucracy violated even the constitutionally guaranteed reservations. Where is
the guarantee that the Indian state and its institutions will implement the non-mandatory
affirmative action programmes. I am arguing that the Bhopal agenda advocates a
rejection of the Indian reservation system in-favor of the American model. There is no
single statement made in the Bhopal agenda about the dismantling of the reservation
system both by the central and state governments. We notice a tension between the two
kinds of reservations demanded in the Agenda. The inclusion of demands related to
reservation system and also the affirmative action programs indicate the contradiction
between those who advocate the American model and those who want to retain the
Ambedkarian concept of reservations.
The Indian state as a neutral agency
The Bhopal agenda posits the Indian state as a neutral agency. Dalit intelligentsia
demanded that the Indian state should be an active player in the Indian market and that it
should ensure Dalits’ share in the market. What is surprising is the fact that Dalit
intelligentia is silent on the major changes- anti-dalit and anti-poor changes, brought
about by the Indian state to strengthen the market forces in the country. Some of the far
2
reaching anti-dalit, anti-poor changes include large scale selling of institutions, Assets,
Infrastructure, public community facilities and land to private corporations, free access to
MNCs, coporatization of Agriculture, contractualiztion/casualization of labour,
privatization of the public sector and so on. Many papers in MR-2004 have already
demonstrated the adverse impact of globalization of Dalits and other poorer sections. In
this scenario a small section of Dalit intelligentia, 1 believe, is making a conscious effort
to align with the Indian state. They are doing it knowing fully well the pro-upper
caste/class character of the Indian state. Before I comment on the comprador character of
a section of the Dalit elite, let me briefly discuss the experience of Globalization in A.P.
The AP Experience of Globalisation
hi last ten years, a large number of cotton, groundnut farmers and several handloom
weavers committed suicide. These suicides of farmers and weavers - a sizable section of
them are SC/BCs, are attributed to the adverse affects of the global market. A.
Committee, enquired into the suicides of Cotton farmers, found out that 255 farmers in
1998,58 in 1999, 119 in 2000,196 in October 2001, 55 farmers on march 15,2002 alone
committed suicides. During 1988-91, 150 weavers died of starvation and some among
them committed suicides. These deaths are a direct consequence of Indian State's pro
globalisation policies
In the last decade, Andhra Pradesh has witnessed a spate of anti-privatization struggles
highlighting the adverse impact of globalization on SC/ST/BCs along with the other
poorer sections. In 1999 December, the student, youth, unemployed united struggle
committee led one of the major anti-privatization struggles in 1999 struggles demanding
employment. This struggle highlighted the World Bank condition that the State
government should downsize its Employees from 11 lakh to 8 lakhs by 2001. They
criticized the Government for the growing unemployment-the registered unemployed
were 30 lakh 80 thousand in 1999.They identified 35 thousand SC,ST backlog vacancies.
The statewide strike by the APSRTC employees for 24 days from 15 October to Nov 7th
2001, the strike of the Singareni workers and the recent on going agitation of the Junior
doctors are against the Government policy of privatization dictated by the World Bank,
IMF, WTO combine, not for their salary and facilities.
On the specific issue of reservations in the Private sector, the pro-world bank Babu
Government is very clear. The Government of AP has categorically denied on the floor of
the Assembly that it cannot implement reservations in the private sector. It opposed
demands for reservations in Trippie IT and Indian school of business established in the
private sector. Lecturers in the colleges teachers in Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare
Residential Educational Institutions societies are appointed on contract basis. In some
departments, the government is following reservations in the contract jobs to avoid any
immediate struggle against the Government.
Given this scenario, dalits needs to wage a militant struggle to secure even the minimum
rights such as reservation in the private sector, scholarships, education and skill
development. We have been fighting for the implementation of the welfare programs,
rervations in the private sector and so on. While fighting for some of these welfare
3
iviain laenuiy
rrcm:
.< ;
H
<afnu@SneCofiiaCi.de>
for
Roir Kunnemann <Kunnemann@t-oniine.ae>
;"‘p-
<'soch3ra@vsnl.com>‘ "Hahn Walter
*
’ <w hahn^brot-fiJ6r-dje-web.orQ>; "Katrin Behrens"
with iiie woiid bank, wouid be uiad ii you iake ihe necessary action, ii is oniy a coincidence irial i was born arid
nmnnnt no in nvdranad annnra nradA.sn and i wisn rhar it innrovas for top. bp.rrp.r in justioA and onod will
■
-
re d dy f b s r! i n)
Wehbank- Kredit fiir Andrah Pradesh/Indien - WEED ■ Welr.virtschafi. Ok...
: x! weed - Weltwiitschaft. Okoiogie unci Entwickiung
2/4/04
2/4/04
i hcmcii
rubitkdiiOilcii
SciviCc
Ubei VvecCi
Die SI60 million Bank loan is intended to support an ’economic
reform’ program by the State government, modeled on a
consultation document called ’Vision 2020.’ The reforms
envisaged in this document, including commercialization of
agriculture. privatization ol state iactiiiies anu the irnposindn oi
user -CCS ''/ill licivc sociullv dcvnstQtin0 effects in file StHte.
— IS. 12.20g
gegen We
WINDOWS'TemDoraiv?/o20hiternet%20Files\Coiilent.IE5'J?JR.06N/n</lSX\andlirav/orl..
C,”.-, A n/Jr«
Pradesh-1
Presseiuit
2 'I 01
si eh i Ven
government io continue with its repressive and brutal policies.
cor tnese reasons, the People's Union for Civil Liberties, an
indian human l ights organisation, has taken a public position
acainst the nrantin.2 of" this loan. A letter from the PUCL's
navionai piesiciem,
* a toim. Siatemdii. ov
anc
PUCT. and the Human Rights Forum have been sent to the
Bank. The full statement is at:
i1 yr VW?Vv.brcttoilvvvGG5projCvt.org/apfi0vstai these organisations
i k—T ■
have asked that others simport their caiiipaieii to ensure that this
pV />tV'
loan is not granted al this lime.
12'2003:
derEUWirischai
Euronaisc
Soziaifbn
cane - G
iVicil riSuLt
ivOHaiviiZ
SAIvlPLE LEI PER.; Jaiii.es Woliensolm President W orlci Bank
1818 H Street. NW Washington DC. 20433 USA rax: — 1 202
522 77001 am concerned to hear that the World Bank is
Pradesh I his state has a long history of social violence and
government repression, including numerous human rights
violations. 1 he loan arid the programs it promotes are likely
onl'’ to worsen this situation. Two prominent Indian human
have issued a statement opposing the "loan. I support this
statement and its demands. In particular. I call on you to halt
ilus loan until: clcctioiis arc held in Andhra Pradcslu ■ the State
government ends extra-judicial executions and complies with its
killings; • the State government disbands vigilante organisations
othc’’ extm-Jesal methods of repression "Vours sincere^v
filc:/.'C:\V,f[NDOVZS\Temporaiy%20Internst%20Files'Contcnt.IE5'J<RQ6MM8X\andhraworl...
2 1'01
FOT:3 £? 7*
/
x_- »
xiz A *»x* w
V4/-nTlfi
xtX x>-
-7%/'
H’G'> !?2 :'P7J ^*1 f21 ?3 TH ? T^/
2 7*'
xix~x>x
*x-
K*.--i JA.J* xa. w w
xXz-xJ.
x^,- -1 x» XXZ W
xm.^xlaA. ttvZ-
in
7b
4. *».*» ^z— «u x- «-«,'>-
Dwti/rlncri?.
-<x
1* xZz V-ix XX K> »u
lUT’PSO HOt FD TB122CS 3GST-
Statement 14 th December 2003 PUCL and Human Rights Forum
K.G. Kannabiran National President Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties
The attack or. the life of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh LA FM on 1/10/2003 at the foot hills of Tirumala
reelings for the naxalites. the need to have a meaningful and effective policy in the matter of handling the
naxuhle phenomenon. The tragedy is dial the man whose near-dealh has brought home this realization is least fil
for making it true.
i lie naxaiivC inc
* vcrncm is a political iiiovciiiciit. it was crafted bv a section ot the comijiiiiiisi movciiicut which
held that the revolution which is their goal cannot be achieved by parliamentary means. It may be that no policy
initiative of the Government will alter this belief.
But rhe movement docs not function in rhe realm of pure political theory or belief Being a political movement
it ilvCb afivl lUilCtiOiiS, aulKtSt the ScCtiOii ui the people WiiO SUppOit it. IheSe people, like all pCOpie WilO SUppOii
extra-constitutional movements, have suffered immensely for their support to the naxahtes. If nevertheless they’
have supported it and continue to support it, it can. only be because of some serious material or social
deprivation they are suffering in society as it is now constituted, and the relief that they find in rhe activity and
A mco.’imefu! and. effective no!icy of handling the naxalite phenomenon can only be a nolicv that will address
this deprivation. It is crue that the political establishment in Andhra Pradesh lias never had such a policy, it is
even more true that rhe dispensation of Chandra Babu Naidu has taken things farther back.
j »!<■ <s€piivatiC’jt that »lic iiiasbcs suiter iiom is oecause <>i iack oi access to uiatciial resources, ait<» sociai
opportunities lor gaming such access. A. variety of economic and social policy steps are needed to create such
access and opportunities, even in a graduaiisl perspective. If there was five percent of actual action and ninety
five percent of mere rhetoric in this regard in the past. Chandra Babu Naidu has declared that even that five
pml nil dmrui acimii is Oiit of bounds of GoveimmCe, fui v.hat GoVClliailCC dues is only tu facilitate
■access to maikets and not provision of sustenance, or resources necessary for sustenance. Such a policy
constituted rhe support base of rhe naxalire. movement.
Soon after becoming Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Chandra Babu Naidu produced a document titled
Vision 2020. surmossdlv his vision for the State in the comins two decades. Il contours have been filled in bv
use. irrigation, agriculture education. neaitu and labour welfare, if one puts oneself in the position of a person
suffering economic deprivation and social discrimination, one can see little hi all this to enthuse.
It is well known that the market funthe World Es^ik in rhe socio econoivic ohilo^o
*^
1'"
GGGU
hi »G
uu iimJ *COG1\CG- GGlpxC SllppGll iTOUx vjlIC »V G11G
in 1HS CllOfl IO 21VO ClxCCl tG
ir One of The consequences of This ninciamenTaiisni is Thar resources such as land, forests., water, and nature in
general are to be pm at die disposal of those '-"ho can invest and add further and greater value to the produce
there iiorn. and not those who meiely live off the resouices. In a country like India where vast numbers of
neoole live direct!v on nature and need access to natural resources for sustenance (his can have a disastrous
cncct on uvcuaooa opportunities.
in districts like Vtsakhapatnatn singled om form Tourism development, whole tracts of land are. being put out of
bounds for people hose livelihood activity is liable to d
oy the attractiveness of the habitat for tourism.
ri..Cx*uiS. ,,rule there has been legal restraint aino<mtn^£ to prohibition on this ever since die 1'urest
conservancy Act was enacted in year 1980. in practice some access was permitted on the sly. ihis is being
tightened up today and the forest dwellers ate being coerced into schemes of joint community management of
forests which privilege cultivation of commeruiailv valuable species oi flora and do not assure a regular income
Public or community irrigation works - not necessarily large scale - were the preferred mode of providing water
for crops from the remote to the recent past. Chandra Babu Naidu has systematically devalued such works and
has very actively canvassed around water conservation as the fulcrum of his Government's irrigation pohev,
whose couco*miQ2it
orhtiie provision of im^2’’0-i dirou^h en er ** * zecl wells st costs o^ofhable to the orwtite
together with debunking of public irrigation works has had the effect of shutting our the possibility of viable
irrigation for farmers of the ram scarce districts of Telangana and Rayalaseema.
The way education and health have been permitted to become nourishing businesses is a particularly vulgar
instance of Chandra Babu Naidu's policy preferences. Vision 2020 goes to the ridiculous extent of identifying
these, two as areas of investment that can act as growth engines for rhe State's economy. No thousht was
apparently been given to the effect the idemificalien ol sucn absolutely essential hie. leQuiremems as 'growth
tugii—i' -
-In. -. iti” ?. high gr.-t ill i'die foi the ecoiioiuy can have on the livelihood lights of the people.
could however be seen in the monsoon months of 2003 when a new form o f hmm fever identified ns
The
memiiSO-ciicepiiaxAtis oroxe out as an epidemic in tlie rural areas oi Warangal anti IVarimiiagar districts.
.
>t ^hil ren of school going age succumbed for want of immediate health care. Everyone was agreed
ili2i pi .-p-i hospiiahzdii-jii ‘.v»rr* »«* twenty four hours could have saved die lives, but oecause or utter iiegiect of
wubiic health. there weie just no hospitals available close to most ol the villages anectea, and the proliferating
crescrintion. on the other hand. sav$ that < Tovernmenfs .responsibility should be confined to primary health care,
the rest
be left to private initiative. This is being toed by Chandra Babu Naidu’s Government.
ana c*»cii iGx aiai viic CjiOvcrnmcnt c<miaO«. gi\c mucn Oj. v.a\ ci nc»p Czvccptm^, gratuitous mar&vCtmg advice.
because the main nrobi.e.rn is want of capital, and public financial institutions are today no longer in a. policy
r.' v;ve fish4
uuq
*y> *’**1;e2*1'ij’•’ed '• ’''>uTh. T”hat is another ciecc of the
Bank's wisdom adopted
tics i k?i mi uh bv our couiiiiv’s rulers. Government employment is being drastically pruned. The World Bank
Governance is being reduced to the minimum and what work is required for that is being taken from
'.'r.rrArT t~px5>7;i labour. But. the *" 1“k'.csc contract casual labour reach a stage wdiere they may seek
legtilanzaiioii vf then ber vices. they are being leuencheo. arid the Courts are reluctant to come m the way of
Government's discretion' in the matter. Exemntions from labour welfare laws are beina aiven with ease; all
fair nrocedure in tenninating rhe services of their employees, and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad has
vcen. exempted from the obligation to pay mmimum wages to the women contract labour engaged by it to sweep
and clean the ertv’s roads.
such socio-economic policies cannot nave any answer to the political challenge posed by rhe naxalites. it can.
only endow the police with arbitrary powers clothed in lawless impunity, or arbitrary laws such as POTA. That
ihe naxalites. more particularly the Peoples War. believe only m paying back in kind makes matters worse.
a common practice in Andhra Pradesh for more than thirty vears now Not oniy actual cadre bin even suspected
cadre and sympathizers have been killed. However, never before Chandra Babu's. government did this killing
atiam tne liguie o> two hundred victims per year. Even during the Emergency period of 1975-77. when
fundamental rislits were official suspended and a number did not cross a liundred and fiffy But what is e\e’i
classes of undesirable persons, too, I here are now at least three such classes who are liable to be killed rather
rl;.;.:-, T.'.kcil T0 a CoTiiT nfT_r,w if aoi-r.-’ienrled by i.he police.
>;iie ii the too? soldiers m the bm ^ame of violent faction conflicts in the K.avalaseema districts of ICumool
Cuddupah and .Vnenihapur. The leaders of :hcsc factions, who thrive financially and politicallv on the
svsremaTic use of muscle and gun power, are legislators of the ruling Teiugu Desam party and its main rival the
■?'.
S'? Party
.jr ih.'-in belong the domitlAnr Rj.r’dy oommiimry fhr police provide iheili With OSCOH
di"."
Sold.’V’^ !•: hlS
gSUie, belonging lO bdvkwapJ cl’l'J tl ibcij C0’1111 •‘Jllltl’-h, dt'.
h-Mtnui’icii m uu>u?u\ wiiiiuut the benefit o! auv inal. The second class oi caiegoiy are persons wiio taxe co
n
1
»»»»” c* c<i»cuei\ cue oor«jO
*.»K>
e/'r-y Paj-:v l^^ders 'T'he^' are strai'^ht 2’vsv hunted clown and killed bv the notice. The
uceuoc.. k»x
part oi proicGsional rOv/t/Gxo oi v*kzCci»s gangs, i»ivji oi m^'iv g<
*ng.
->
are compose o of men from iiornadir communities low down in rhe caste hierarchy with. lime social sympathy
'.i’i i ?.»r,-.
*< regime ~h‘are being killed not only before being produced in a Court of law
3;
*
but
albv afici beiiiy remanded to judicial custody bv a competent Court. they are liable to be killed on the way to
r^ri^on to obtam. extension of remand or to face trial Imnumty m the form of administrative
ry-oiTt
u : ? I'?? long ?.' a secret that this Government is encouraging policemen in these unlawful acts of brutality by
rewaiduiu them m various ways. Hie major incentive was oui-of-turn promotions to trigger-happy policemen.
ti11£ w^s after a counle of years struck
down bv the Courts as unconstitutional But sneciai cash rewards
provision 01 unauuivcci and rniticcouiivco runos. prcxcrrcd postings. etc me the otliCx means oi encouraging police
hrutaiirv.
Torture of very severe kinds is regularly practiced by the police of Andina Pradesh. It began with naxalile
«-i<. ■—ui l vtO'wU
opccA<^l
vv*i c chaxxxbcro fox Uxxxixs.^'
stcxvxOxxS. tiiv/oC k/canoiis arc out or v/ounc*s to liiC
public. Giving electric shocks to sensitive parts of the hodv is a routine form of torture used in the course of
police interrogation in A.P.
entire of the naxaiire parties to rnrn into coiinrer-insiirgents and permitting them to live on crime and extortion
ioimcl naxahicS nulled infu agents oi die police even while still ostensibly working n't then pariv, and value out
w:ih their weapons after killing tlieir own 'comrades'. If two of them had not died, one (Samnii R.eddv) killed bv
JaJ-lti Nagsi'apj, one of the first of these eotuiter-iiisiifgeiits belongs to Raiiiakislitapui in Maiithaiii Mutliaiatu
manual oi Kaiinmagai district, l ie was a member oi an armed squad oi the people's war On the intervening
.-..rtKr Qt 11th and 12'lie Apr?l toqg he shot dead lite District Committee Secretart7"of that t^artv and escaped to
from the law nv iirjvesrigaring‘ his offence and concluding mat it was done in self defence. He now continues his
r
' car ' /■ He got elected to a local body post (Mandal Parisliad Territorial Constituency member) iii the
ranenayat elections io the middle iiei neighbouring village ol Khammampalii. At the tune oi electrons to the
middle tier Pcmchuv?t elections from the neishbourm*7 \ ill?ue of TCh,?mmmr>3111 At the time of elections to the
electors and forced postponement of the elections. He has a gang of tough-iooking young men with him who
move, aroiiiio m fast vehicles and terrorise any one. m the villages suspected of having sympathies for the
uaxahies. Bui vvhen a case was tiled questioning ihe grant ol award lo hurt, the police have been pretending that
thc\’ pro not awsrc of his whereabouts
Nayeernuddin of r/hongir in Nalgonda district was once upon a time a People's War member. He is named as
/‘Vim recused vj the killing of setiiOf police off-cer Vy^s in a. daring day light murder in rlydciabad’s Fateh
nne time in iaii ne developed diiierences wuh ihc Peoples' War leadership and surrendered to the
•-
lyQil \\3^0'vsc
*
,’’io
'0O
**
cjCt> duel lie how l*vss
’-3Slionsir in
2!oiicln district
He however has a police escort for rhe. reason that lie is threatened by the
mouihlv expendiime unis to about Rs.5 lakhs. and the police pays much or
joavyapu Sammi Reuuv.
•ar District Committee member oi people's War surrendered to the police arid
heir organizations, or left the district and moved to Hyderabad. His writ ran with even the Public sector
The late Kathula Sammaiah, one of
weapons, nave no
connections giving the names of the police officers involved, in rhe aftermath of Sammaiatr's death hv accident
iolulif
l he police are honnd to see the decision or the ni|ing narrv as a signal to Them to ent loose past history
for a confession netore invited press personnel!
circumstances it has become necessary to insist that the Internal Financial Institutions like the World
improper utilization or diversion of the leans grantee., it is net epen to an-. niternaucnal financial institution to
facilitate the growth of authoritarian or tyrannical system of governance The World Fsank has become an
people. Vei\ viton the Banks coiisuliams "rewrite a countivs hade policy, fiscal policies, civil sei vice
■< ’‘■■’ ■‘■.”<■‘*'1^3 la^c"*
f-ealth care arransemems environmental regulations. enerav oolicv. resettlement
.A. deYclopnrC’:- process is to enhance then capabilities m all the spheres of life and thus enhance the quality and
content of their lives and the loans granted have to be to be for people oriented policies ano not for leaders to
a^^andize rhemsef- es and those elite who sunnort them in power. We would like io point out that the World
isamc is not a tree /vsciii anct ruu.<.nvii CjUitc aroitranix wncn
lo<m.o aic xO«. xxOvciopmom. inat »»orti cis
defined hr The peooie will have. to be accented and adopted it is open to rhe Chief Minister to make The receipt
received and die manner n was spent ioi development and subject it io the country audrioi die Comptionei anti
'•av^i+t'.r Cener?l and these should be o^blioizcd widely Tor workm*"* definition of the World Bank's Role in
T;er eiopment as Freedom: "Development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as
well as Tvratin’.t poc- ecoiioinic opporptnities as well as systematic- social deprivation. neglect of public
irtCiitiies cis s'seli us lutOiciaucc or wcraciivliv oi repressive iorces. L?espiie uiipreceueiiied mciease in overall
<hc co—^wnw'-'T’r^* '•'■orl'-* demes
freedom -o vsst numbers ~ nerhsps even the mSiOritv - of
ihe freedom to saiisfv hunger, or to achieve sufficient nutrition, or to obtain remedies for treatable iiiness. or the
>he uuii€<-dum uitk^ cloaciv
im
the lack of pubhc iacilities ami social care, such as ihe absence of
3nh5.->-"i.atr\pi r>r' 'c-'Ai* of or.orranr,ei??ents for health care or educational facilities or of effective
directiy from a deniai of poiiticai and civii liberties by authoritarian regimes and from imposed restrictions on
a.-, can: be seen from our narrative the observations of Amartya Sen fully apply to the situation m the State
Wva •-•-LBa
jo...-AyidJix ?. .wh.d1-' >w k Wc
home subscribe ■ search help contact
powered b’.' Action Anns i hosted bv CrreehNet1 Credits
The
77. ■ the?
hznh
Directors
cf h??z???"h/z
updated December' : 1, 2G03
The Rank information Center organized this guide in terms of first,, the ton 5 shareholders of the Rank,, and second.
the Executive Director's country of origin. The first country that is listed is the Executive Director’s country of
origin, though the ED represents all of the countries in that box. Please note that because Executive Directors are
rotated periodically, BiC will publish updates or. this page as necessary.
When writing to board members, use the following format:
Full Name, Room Number, World Sank Group
io 18 n Street, N'vV, Washington, D.C. 20433, USA
Two Executive Directors are housed at the IMF, 700 19'" Street, Washington, DC 20433, USA
if you would prefer to see this list in a more printer-friendly manner, click here for a ndf format 2..pa.geja.ble,
Ari executive Directors belong to Committees, click here to. view membership .for this term.
Executive Director
Contact Information
ED'S Country of origin
Other Countries Represented
% Voting power
in IBRD
'. Voting Power
in IDA (as of
June 2002 )
United States
16.45
14.52
TOP 5 SHAREHOLDERS
Carole Brookins, MC 13-525
Tel: 202-458-0110 Fax: 202-477-2967
Email: cbrookios@worldbank.org
1
Alternate: Robert 6. Holland, ill,
Tel: 202-453-0115
u~.a:i: rnciigng&wgr:dgank,cr3
Yuzo Harada. MC 12-305
Tel: 202-458-0098 Fax: fl^-522-1581
Email: yharadaworldbank,o.rg
Attenuate: Masanori Yoshida
Tel: 202-458-0100
Email: myoshida@worldbank.org
1
7.89 ’
11,09
Eckhard ueuiscner, MC i i- i 25
Tel: 202-458-1183 Fa,X! 207-477-7849
Email: cdeutccher0worldbank.org
4.51
7,13
Germany
•
i Alternate: Eckhardt Biskup
i Tel: 202-458-1190
i Email: ebiskup@worldbank.or^
i .. . . .
•
4 3/
e r>z\
I
Pi ic::
IMF 1 - 1 1 8
! Tel: 202-67.3-6505 Fax: 202-673-4051
i
I Alternate: Emmanuel Moulin
■ ~Tp< ' ')!'}')6 507
------- ------------------------------------------------ ------------- —
'Thomas Scholar, IMF 11-120
! Tel: 202-623-4560 Fax: 202-623-4965
: Eman: ^chpiarworidbanK.org
4.^2
4.40
9
i
i
! itt. 202-623-4555
i Email: rsievenson&woridbank.or^
___
SHARED REPRESENTATION
! Alieto Guadagnt MC 13-561
J Tel: 202-458-2066 Fax: 202-477-3786
I Email
*
«i“ uciuas- i i •>“/ - vnxS , ii >, •_,<
...............
2.33
. —
>.8u
BoliYta, Chile, Pera^uey, Peru, Urusjus1*
!
i
' A' ternate' Alfonso C
•
i > norias uonn Austin,
, i-z4o
[Tel: 202-458-1018 rax: 202-477-2007
[ Email: j8i.!$tin<sworirtbank.org
*.z-.US
r
alia
Cambodia, Kiribati, Marshall islands, Federated
Stares of Micronesia, Republic of Korea,
MonsoHs. Ne'v Ze3l3nc! Republic cf Pslsu P«pu3
New Guinea, Sarnos, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu
!1 sSctCt
.<+ i >'.<«.Fk. . l/vhx jl
c -G„ Lkih
i Tel: 202-458-1025
| Email: dcMn&worldbank.orq
|..............
..... :~.......
................
1 Kurt Ba^er, MC 12-541
Austria
i TgI: 202-458-4661 Fax: 202 522-3453 Belarus. Belgium. Czech Republic Hurs^ar'
Email; ......
kbayer©v/oridbank.on?
Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Slovak Republic,
■* .... ...........................
Slovenia, Turkey
i A-'rernnt?: Gino Afretta
i Tel: 202-473-6840
Ema’’.: ETlT^tta^Roridbonk.ors
_______________________
Amaury Bier, "AC 12-319
Tai: 202-^58-0090 Fax: 202-522 1551
Email: abieiXiiwoiidbank.org
-ir .-'J
. f
n ; •_ „ ..■ ■; r
•
u • •
n
*
iL>om«niCc
ixopuPcic, u.<.uacior, Haiti,
Panama, Philippines, Suriname, Trinidad and
Tobapo
-3’46
J.UI
i
I
I
i
!
i
i
i
4.82
4.49
—
3.61
-
■ ;
i
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
1
----------------------- --- --------------------------------- .---------------- --
C U/nK»fr>n
.-»•... u. a.;;.i/n
ii£;. / >_,1 v -'G 3. liUUllun
Marcel Masse, MC 52-175
i OU 202-458-00// >SX'. 202'4//--4 i 55
Email: mn1asse@worldbank.or2
...
.
... .
, /uiernace: snaron wooer
1 f<i: 202-433 007'?
Euiufi: SWebendWOridbQ!lk.Of'%
Guangyao Zhu, MCI 3-111
Tel: 202-458-0058 Fax: 202-522-1579
* it. 5c’_
cp-.-.i!
Th
t. ’’^v/or’d^ank.or^
?« .r. 1
-a
.
..... .
■■
Antigua and Barbuda, me Bahamas, Barbados,
Belize, Dominica. Grenada, Guyana, Ireland,
Jo.mo.ica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St= Lucia, St.
3.36
4.25
, indent and Gre».adines
China
2.79
1.88
Alternate: Wu Jinkang
Tel: 202-458-0052
~mQil' \winkan?@worldbank.orn
Thorsi-fnn ln”olfsson . MCI 3-531
Tel: 202-458-1081 Fax: 202-477-6818
Don ma rk
Finland, Estonia, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania,
Norvvay, Sweden
4.95
!
1 A /rom<i:-z.i • /n/zz>ri Uri'./onrrilr\
7.
tmait: inr: vensatctyv/priuoanT..or'±
i Paulo F. Gomes, MC 13-335
i Tel: 202-458-1153 Fax: 202-522-1585
Email: pgpmes^wpr/pppnfcpr?
I
1 .
....................................
; Alternate: louis Pntuppe Ung seng
i Tet.' 202-458-7126
i Email: pongseng^wprtobank.or^
r
i Chander Mohan Vasudev. MC 12i 151
I -pe,!.
*
F"X
~'0?-47?-91 10
i 7“
“*■ 77’’Af .7“ !/’ 7!iM
, rman: cmvasuoev^wortqpanK.or^
Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cape Verde,
Central African Republic. Chad. Comoros. Cote
cFIvoire, Democratic Republic of the Con^o,
Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Guinea,
Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger,
Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sao Forne and
Principe, Senegal, Somalia (informally), Togo
India
Ban^ladssh, Bhutan Sri Lanka
2.0C
2.85
3.41
Akbar Ali Khan
To!' 202-458 IO1'Eniail'. pkpuLipmyioi'idbpink.p!'/
Biagio Bossone, MC 13-751
i el: 202-^58-1169 Fax. 202-47/-3.35
Email: bbossonee’woridbank.ors
.. .
itaiy
Albania, Greece, Malta, Portugal, San Mai »no
3.47
3.93
Kuwait
2.73
AiLzniatf?- Mr. Nuno Mota Pinto
En'iui i: nn'iotapirito&woftdbank.
Mandy ismaii Aijazzaf, MC 12-125
jet: 'u.'-^5o-iOSG rax: 202-47/-o53/
F me • •: ma1j2773fc wnr1 ribank. org
................. —
2.16
Bahrain, Arab Republic of Egypt, Jordan,
Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Oman, Qatar, Syrian
Arab Republic United Arab Emirates. Republic of
Tel: 202-458-1027
i Email: rpQmr@wpridtonk.prg
_________________ __ ______________
1 Ad MelKert, MC 13
*433
1 Tel: 202-458-2052 Fax: 202-522-1572
! Email: ame'k^rt’iP-WOr’dbar’k.Org
;
.....
........
•
i Airernare: Tamora Soiyanyk
i re/; 202-473-4562
i .-__.•/. *
_
/ _________
lX'<VUfl
’''\(y.',W' uk-i.
tOL'c'-r
X
Netherlands
Armenia Bosnia and He’^e^ovina, Bulgaria
Croatia- Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Romania,
Ui\! di i ft
,_a _
‘
’
K-
s
■
■
.
■
■
!
g -
S X 'j
2 ••
5-
&
1 ■■:
| 1 05
3.35
0
?'
p
:
c 1
1
S .
l
1
ch.
■
;
.
r*a_ 1
_I
rdH!>t.c!f
Afghanistan, Algeria, Ghana, islamic Republic of
Iran. Iraq. Morocco. Tunisia
■
4.48
c-
£
6
a
e>
r
:» 2.<.Vr
?' a >-£
g a -
■
s’ s ?
3£j[ ?>•.. ‘“1!
2 s s.
••
- |k
m -1 -J
9Ci !? H)
I £ri
"
1
1
■
!
_
1 Per Kurowski, MCI 2-453
i Tel: 202-458-2089 Fax: 202-522-1575
' Email: ’^k’jrowskiOv-'orldbankt.om
Republics Boiivariana de Venezuela
Costa Rica; El Salvador. Guatemala. Honduras.
Mexico, Nicaragua, SnGin
4.51
2.22
I.1 A/tej'j'fdte.’ /Vhjf’ju JcSUS rcj’jjuj.'uc'z
Tei: 202-458-2095
1 Emo.i-.’. mfernandzzfflwcridbank.GrG
j___________________________________ _______________________________________________
Pnccjsn
1 ^igvy/ Kvasov MC 13
*635
2.79
1 ■’■jx’
7QRr» Fiy- 237 ►■7~7 ■‘77i
0,27
j Email: akyasqyaworqbank.org
! Alternate". Eunene Mia^kov
l to;. 2,/}7.zf5fo.pnz.,“
■.
.
• ■. or2
| Yahya A-uilah M. Alyahya, MC 12-
3.55
i let: 202-458-0191 Fax: 202-47/-175y
! Email: vslyahva^worldbank.org
i , .x _
x .
i j~uttj iiGte." ADGu<t~€iiliTi€iri /Vi.
j Aimofadhi
1 tp:- 7n?-45iW!Ri}
i Ema^l". Qalmo^adtil^worIclbank om
i Pii&TTft
M<~ i s-777
j
i
1
1
1
1
j
1
i
• Switzerland
r?” ?.Y?.jS£!.
Email: ov-T-br
?_?v. 20?.477-9110
vorldbank. crn
A7erhaii?n; Kyrgy'7 Rppiihiir; Poland. Tz?jikist?n.
3.55
T' !rkmenic-tar;. Uzbekistan
1
|
1
Alternate; Jerzy nytevyski
Tel: 202-458-7Q60
... ......
; Rapee Asumpinpong, MC 13-175
Thailand
DamArroHr
! Tel: 20?-458-1197 Fax: 202-477-4116 Prnnai Hon icc■atarn Pi-ii ! □n
J Email: rasumpinpqngQv7orldbgnk .org Republic, IndonssiGs Malaysia, .Myanmar, Nepal,
Singapore, Tonga, Vietnam
i Alternate: Hadiyanto
’ Tel: 202-458-1193
i ~mai:' hadrjanto^ixvorldbank.or?
4 z- \/_•? >-*! -! •
■1 « - .. • - * «✓__ I---- J- *,«•-•<.
... ...... . . . '
.
ZUZ-45S-4W5 rax: 20z-5zz-i>-:-y
i LiiiaiC irxaScrvci iuc’e'»»vi iMMCiiiix.vi
I _ .
1
__ .•
—
! ve;.
I~.’X
1 m'huh. J'/’J’-'.’
.....
2.55
2.62
i
i
Uwhhu5
Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
i lie oaiTiOia, ixciiya, LeSOtilv, LiLfCi'iu, /v\aiaV/j,
Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Seychelles, Sierra
Leone South Africa Sudan Swaziland Tanzania
Zambia. Zimbabwe
3.61
if you wouid tike additional irirormation on Alternate Directors and/or Advisors, please contact the Bank
information Center, (see below)
Return to BiC's. HOME PAGt
733 15*h Street NW Suite 1126
Washington, D.C. 20005
phone: 202-737-7752. fax: 202-737-1155
!
i
1
1
C-c
Psige 1 of 7
Community Health Cell
i-rom:
To:
■’tshantu Sharma:: <shantu_sharma(g)hoimaii.com>
<nodice@.globalnet.co.uk>: <s.prasad@cgiar.org>: <s kavula@yahoo.com>:
<anthra@hd2. dot. net. in>: <sakshi_ap@satyam. net. in>: <sambavna@sancharnet. in:
<sandeenc^3ctionaid!nd!a.or'r’>- <sandhva/c)born3.vsn!.n6t.!n:>'
6/2 i Z04
<saiyavaifoii@yahuu.uom>, <seuieiauai@phmuvenierii.uiy>, <sgkabia@sariuhamei.in>,
<shashi@teheika.com>; <sheeiu1 @vsni.com>; <shivasundar35@rediffmaii.com>;
<shu@bbc.co.uk >: <sidur@tatanova.com>: <samata@satyam.netin>; <smitashu@vsnl.com>;
<smitu@usa.net>; <sochara@vsnl.com>: <speql@rediffmail.com>
<spwd hyd@satyam.net.in>; <sreedhara@vsnl.net>; <srinivask99@yahoo.com>;
<suiuiua_ni_gauiama@suu'eu.n^, <surianua_j/ik@yariuu.cuni>, <suiienuei@eui.riei>,
Sent:
<kavitha_Kuruganti@yahoo.com>; <tuKarams@ucnnk.berkeiey.edu>
Saturday. June 1S. 2004 12:25 PM
WTO ’8'. Fsrm Drsft + Proposed INDIA-MERCOSUR FTA + Ve’goi! industry ^Farmers' Issu
In The Financial Express, India, June 14, 2004
1. Comment Article On Geneva Process For Preparation Of WTO Farm Draft
2. Proposed INDIA-MERCOSUR FTA - Vegetable Oil And Food Industries Want
Ssfeguurds
3. V cgctablc Oil Industry Dciiidiids TtuixTHikc Tv Ciicvk Cheap liiipvits
4. Fanners voice iheir Demands in Pre-Budgei Proposals
PARl^T FRONT Column in the Commodity Watch Page
Can 1 nird World Negotiate Well tor barm Draft?
httn/Twww financialexnress enm/fe fiill story nhp?onntent Jd-61305
ASHOK B SHARMA
In the last two weeks a feeling of optimism has been generated in Geneva
for breaking (he deadlock in WTO negotiations. Hopes are being centered on
of July, which will pave ihe way for discussions in inc WTO nnnisieriai hi
January, 2005.
This sense of optimism comes from a sequence of events which took Nace in
Farm Commissioner, Franz Fischier sen: a missive to ali WTO trade ministers
promising to phase out farm export subsidies provided other forms of ~
subsidised export competition were also eliminated and that there is an
■0 presented then proposals at a xonnai meeting.
These developments made both the WTO director-general, Supachai
Panitchpakdi and the. chairman of the WTO, committee on agriculture, Tim
critical agi'icuiturai negotiations.
6/21/04
Page 2 of?
iliay Oc cVcil iUOic inipuftaiit" fui dcVciupiiig COUiltiicS ill dllcVidtiiig pOVCity
than increased official development assistance.
Snnachai Panitchnakdi is further honefill of the negotiating parties taking
advantage of the ongoing UNCTAD XI meeting in Sao Paulo in Brazil for
luiuicriug the i'dlki un iHUiu-laicial hade and hnplcuientatiuu of the Doha
Agenda.
There is nothing wrong in being optimistic about any noble cause Hie
ui the wiO committee on agriculture, Tim Grosser say "div world would be
astonished it a balanced framework is not produced." He said "the
expectation for a framework docs not necessarily guarantee that one will
appear by itself. Members will have maximum period of two months to produce
preamble which "would be 80 per cent right." Grosser, however, avoided using
the term emerging consensus.
Grosser is ri^ht in his own way but still there are hurdles. The Euronean
UuiOxi’s vvuilululient xOI piidSilig Out xaTIii export Subsidies IS With cliOugh
riders. Eli is conscious about its farm sector, particularly in light of
recent OECD study on the impact of the implementation of the Common
Agriculture Policy (CAP) The FIJ last year through CAP proposed to decouple
the support given to farmers, irrespective of what thev produce. The OECD
study points out a sharp decline m net exports and a modest full in
production of main crops covered under reforms. However, the OECD study said
that decoupling of support to farmers would result in removing the
distortions in global trade
The OECD study also sard faun lefiiims as piuposed ui CAP makes no
significant cut in overall support to farmers, ft does not propose to open
up the European market. The farmers having large landholdings will stand to
benefit from decotmled navmerils.
In the prevailing situation lire EU, therefore, has linked its proposal to
"phase out" (not eliminate) tarm export subsidies to action taken by other
(to FIfs satisfaction) on state trading enterprises, food aid, export
credit, domestic support, market access (both for farm and non-farm
products). EU is not m favour ot capping Green Eox subsidies.
The G-20 proposals, this time, seek to balance different interests within
the group as well as concerns of other WTO members outside- the group. G-20
docs not call for any tariffreduction formula, but suggests steeper cuts on
higiicT IcuIxxS With SOnic gudTdliicC vf flexibility xOF Sviiic Sensitive ilcIiiS
and tarins to be capped with exception of limited products to be agreed
upon. It proposes tariff quota expansion for developed countries.
On S&D for developing countries G-20 proposes milder cuts over longer
tiilictauxv. It Calls xbi‘ flexibility to USc a "Special pi'OduCt" Category
under necessary conditions, to be agreed upon in negotiations.
G-33 calls for special safeguard mechanism and SAD for developing
countries, member countries right to select special products, exemption of
EDCs Hum tai iff i eduction, duty and quota nee access ofLDC pioducis to
developed countries, it says that tariff reduction formula should be linked
to Doha mandate.
6/21/04
Page 3 of7
G-10 is opposed to traiff capping and compulsory expansion of tariff quotas
and favours Uruguay Round approach for tariff reduction and fixing of end
date tor export subsidies provided concerns on market access, domestic
support, subsidised credit, food aid, state trading companies are handled in
parallel
rlu res fin deveh
iuiv countries tests uu how effectivelv the G-20 and G-33
van cooperate among themselves ana negotiate.
’FTA With .Mercosur Group Shouldn’t Hit Domestic Veg Oil, Food Industries'
http://www.tinancialexpress.com/te tull story, php'/content id=61464
ASHOK B SHARMA
New Delhi, June 15
Ahead of India preparing to sign a free trade agreement (FTA) with the
Mercosur group of countries, the vegetable oil and food indu stries have
cautioned the government to work out the arran gem gnt keeping in n?ind the
interests of domestic industry.
A study conducted jointly by the Exim Bank and the Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FTCCT). however, suggests better
Mercosur is a regional trading bloc rbrmed in March 1991, consisting of
.Argentina, Brazil. Paraguay and Uruguay. In 1996, Chile and Bolivia joined
as associate members After the collapse of the WTO Cancun ministerial meet,
hoth In di a nnd
have taken initiative to fiirther South South trade
India signed a picfciculial tiauc agreement (PTA) with ivfcivusui on January
25,2004 to be followed by negotiations for FT A it is expected that Brazil
and India may meet on the sidelines of the ongoing Unctad XI at Sao Paolo
for fijriher discussions on the nrouosed FTA
Argentina and Brazil are major producers of soyabean and soyabean oils and
this has invited grave concerns tor the Indian vegetable oil industry as
the country prepares to sign an FTA with Mercosur. Soyabean oil has a low
WTO-bound tarift' rate of 42 r>er cent. The Central Organisation for Oil
oils be kept out of the purview of the proposed PTAs and FTAs. "In case this
is not possible, a minimum value addition of 45 per cent should be
incorporated for providing a level playing field for the domestic edible oil
director, COOi'l.
The executive director of Vanaspati Manufacturers Association of India
A'AfA'), S Gurumoorthi, said: 11 A. level playing field for demcsfic indngtrv is
ilcCcSSdiy. The iiiduSuy iS Suffering Oil oCCOUiit of the lildia-Ncpal Treaty ui
Trade and FT A with Sri Mnka. While the Indian industiy is paying 65 per
cent customs duty on the raw material, crude palm oil (CPO), the producers
in these countries are benefited by the twin advantages of duty-free import
of C-'PO and 100 per cent customs duty concession granted, by Indin on import
ui vaiiaapaii uuui these vuimtiicb. India, should, thciciuie, uc uautiuus m
signing Fl As with Mercosur and Thailand."
Some experts said it was difficult to assess value addition to (he extent
6/21/04
Page 4 of7
of 25 per cent and above in vegetable oils and processed foods. Value
additiuu 01 auOVc 25 pci Cciit WOuld i'eSUn iii Uildvr-iiTvOiCiiig of laW
materials imported and over-invoicing of The finished products exported.
The executive dn^ctnr of the Centre for International Trade in
Agriculture and Agr\based Industries (CITA), Vijay Sardana, said:
"Cuuvci ting butici
should nut be healed as value additiuu, but
should be viewed as a commodity of the same category under trade. The
country of origin of the ba^raw material should be considered as a
criteria, not the derived product. This is essential to check imports from
a third country" Mr Sardana said.
India had good prospects of exporting wheat, wheat flour, barley, malt of
van cooperate among themselves ana negotiate.
'FTA With Mercosur Group Shouldn't Hit Domestic Veg Oil, Food Industries'
http://www.tinancialexpress.coni/te lull story.ptip'/content id=61464
ASHOK B SHARMA
New Delhi, June 15
Ahead of India preparing to sign a tree trade agreement (FTA) with the
Mercosur group of countries, the vegetable oil and food industries have
coutioned the government to work out the srrnngement keeping in mind the
uitcxcSts Oi uviucStiv HluuStiy.
A study conducted jointly by the Exim Bank and the Federation of Indian
Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FTCCT). however, suggests better
Mercosur is a regional trading bioc formed in March 1991, consisting of
Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. In 1996, Chile and Bolivia joined
as associate members After the collapse of the WTO Cancun ministerial meet,
emd
have tnksn initiative to fiirther South South trade
India signed a picicivniial tiade agiccuicm. (PTA) with Ivlcivusui uii Januai y
2\ 2004 to be followed by negotiations for Fl A it is expected that Brazil
and India may meet on the sidelines of the ongoing Unctad XI at Sao Paolo
for fiirther discussions on the nronosed FTA.
Argentina and Brazil are major producers of soyabean and soyabean oils and
this has invited grave concerns tor the Indian vegetable oil industry as
the country prepares to sign an FTA with Mercosur. Soyabean oil has a low
WTO-bound tariff1 rate of 42 per cent. The Central Organisation for 0il
oils be kept out of the purview of the proposed PTAs and FTAs. "In case this
is not possible, a minimum value addition of 45 per cent should be
incorporated for providing a level playing field for the domestic edible oil
director, UOOiT.
The executive director of Vanaspati Manufacturers Association of India
S Gummoorthi, seid: 11A level playing field for domestic
is
ilcvcSSuiy. The iilduStiy" iS SuScixilg Oil aCCOUilt of tile Ifidia-rfepal Treaty Qi
Trade and FT A with Sri T^nka. while the Indian industry is paying 65 per
cent customs duty on the raw material, crude palm oil (CPO), the producers
in these countries are benefited by the twin advantages of duty-free import
of vanaspati Hum these counuics. India should, tlicicfoie, be cautious in
signing FTAs with Mercosur and Thailand."
Some experts said il was difficult Io assess value addition to the extent
6/21/04
Page 4 of7
of 25 r*cr cent and above in vegetable oils and processed foods. Value
additiOil of aboVc 25 pci' Cent Would i'cSult ill Uildvi-iiTVoiCiug of i'aW
materials imported and over-invoicing of the finished products exported.
The executive dm&rtor of the Centre for International Trade in
Agriculture and Agro.based Industries (CITA), Vijay Sardana, said:
"Convcitnig buitci iiiithglicc aliould not be ucatcd as value addition, but
should be viewed as a commodity of the same- category under trade. The
country of origin of the basbraw material should be considered as a
criteria, not the derived product. This is essential to check imports from
a third country" Mr Sardana said.
India had good prospects of exporting wheat, wheat hour, barley, malt of
Page 4 of?
of*
* 25 per cent end sbov- in vegetable oils 2nd processed foods. Value
uuuiiiOi'i Oi avOVc 25 pci’ Cent Wuuld i’CSuIt in uiidci-iiiVuiCiiig of iaW
materials imported and over-invoicing of the finished products exported.
The executive director of the Centre for International Trade in
Agriculture and Agro based Industries (CITA), Vijay Sardana, said:
"Cunvci ling bulici lulu ghcc should not be iicared os value addition, bur
should t?e. viewed as a commodity of the same category under trade, rhe
country' of origin of the basic raw material should be considered as a
criteria, not the derived product This is essential to check imports from
India had good prospects of exporting wheat, wheat ilour, barley, malt of
barley, maize, onions, tea. and spices to Brazil in return for importing
sovabean oil and cotton lint. "But we should be careful in dealing with
pivuuvvo »»uviv uvui wmrnivo naw vvjucu wmpvuuvv axj-vcuiuagvo, iuw in
soyabean cakes, refined sugar, molasses, green coffee, tobacco leaves, sugar
and mangoes," he said.
tobavvo leaves, lea, spices, fresh fruits and vegetables, pineapples, touiafo
paste to Argentina and import dry beans, soyabean oil, sunflower seed oii
and meat and meat products from that country. "We should be careful in
products like wheat. wheat flour, soyabeans, maize and refined sugar where
Veg Oil Cos Moot Tariff Hike on Refined Oils, Vanaspati
ASHOK ±5 SHARMA/VIJAY 1RIVWX
New Delhi/Mumbai, June 13
*h*IC VOgOtublO Oil
f 1'1 r
■frlsr* rCSllvvl
sectors expressing grave concern over tire rising imports have varied fur an
adequate mcrease in customs duty.
The Central Organisation for Oil Industry and Trade (COOIT), Solvent
Association (Tv OrA) in their separate memoranda to the Union finance
minister, P Chidambaram have urged tor an increase in import duty on refined
palm oil and palmolien. The vanaspati industry represented by the Indian
Vanaspati Producers' Association (IVPA) and Vanaspati hdanufacturers1
be raised from the existing 30 per cent to iOO per cent or maidng it at par
with that on imported refined palm oil.
COOIT hsE ssked for "miring the import duty on refined, pslm oil 2nd
pauuuiciii to 75 per cent and thereby rationalising the duty differential
between crude and refined oii to a minimum of iO per cent." SF.A has demanded
that the import duty on refined palmolein should be restored to 85 per cent
as it was prevailing till April 30, 7003 TVOP A has gone ahead of SFA in
suggesting that apart from raising the customs duty on refined palm oil by
15 pel vent uimiediatcly. "special additional duty of 5 pci cent should be
levied again on refined soyabean oii." COUX'X has aiso demanded fixing of
tariff values for imported refined soyabean oil time to time as is being
done- in cases of imported erode degunimed soyabean oil, palm oil and
6/21/04
Page 5 of7
The import of vegetable oil has increased trom $ i 355.57 million in 200 i -02
to S 1806.97 million in 2002-03. In the first ten months of the fiscal
7003-04 imports of edible oils (in rupee value) increased by 37 14 per cent
rtirr&f flao
vos.
yvu'-oJ tn ♦Via
■fic'r'nl
nt avj
Dr 7
“
‘'vm Vscrnrv
uviujj uv
.)/7/ul v.Viv,
In the last two mouths global puces have clashed and pi ices ui RBD
Palmoiein nave gone down by over j 125 and that of degummed soyabean oil by
$ 165. As a result the domestic prices have correspondingly fallen on
account ofcheap imports, affecting both the industry and the oilseed
However, there is a slight difference of views between the vegetable oil
processors or extractors and the vanaspati industry. The vegetable oil
nrnccssnrs nnd extractors want the duty differential for refined palm
, pbiinvjlVzlll OX1U
--7 V1UUV pOXLU VU
.-n
Gw
i o IV 1
K
n~r Will
cent QO
as
V/) OUUUIU UV IV
J pVl
against the cunent differential of 5 per cent, while the vanaspati industry
wants the duty on CPO be further reduced to 25 per cent as was the case
earlier under actual user conditions. The vanaspati industry has said that
rhp riiryh tariff of 55 DCT C6Ht OH CPO which IS USCd £LS 2. riW HlO-tcrisl
vuiipl&l With ulv ivW uuuxvx 3v pia wlii Oil VaiidSpdu have riaidcFcd uivlii
ineffective io face competition from cheap imports from Nepal, Malaysia and
Sri Lanka.
*
TTtr
*rtrnent
rr'-\Tr/>«
’s stipulstiors on 2cts._coroicnc content for import of CPO
has plagued both the oil processors or extractors and the vanaspati industry
alike. Tney are united asking the government to review this order. They have
said that due to long transportation and variance of temperature the
Reta-camtene content gets changed and fall below the stipulated level of
^AA rvnm ‘ xuv
I 'ka f 'THv/5 onncirrtiTTiartt
.4vM-i Anar
n—ci
vvnJiCyunviAL. ts
nluvu
uvvu nnt
uvv linvra
uu.>v sAfl nnm Tfc+n
X7V.U pn-ntana
VU7VVVUV u
v
*
being; ucdicd di icnnc palm oils. Hence uic inuusuy is fuiveu io pay
customs duty at 70 per cent in lieu to 65 per cent to get the imported CPO
consignment released, adding up to the cost. SEA has suggested that instead
of the mandatory Beta-carotene stipulation, the government should prescribe
’The vanaspati industry and oil processors and extractors have called tor
removal of excise duty on refined oils and vanaspati. SEA has asked for
exemption of excise duty of Rs one per kg levied on non-conventional oils
seed oil Civ olid ivxiilliig Gx iildigCiiGuS xiXvd
vegetable oils" failing under i 502.00 categoiy. It has asked withdrawal of
excise duty on food grade hexane or at at least reduce it to 16 per cent for
making it at par with petroleum products.
refined oiis. industrial margarine and iniersterified should enjoy the same
excise regime and excise exemption granted to vanaspati units and refineries
in Jamun and Kashmir, Uttaranchal, and Kntch district in Gujarat should be
v.fthdr3?.vn. OO- --1 has su^^osted
oilseed, oil and its derivatives should
attract maximum sales tax of one per cent. Both COUT and SEA nave suggested
creation of an oilseeds and oils Development Fund.
Agri-India To The Fore With Its Charter Of Demands
raiuieis Seek Voice In Pie-Budget Consultations
http://www.financialexnress.com/fe_full story.php?contentjd-61301
6/21/04
Page 6 of7
ASHOK B SHARMA
New Delhi, June IS
The organisations of farmers and farm labourers have criticised the
nre-Rudget proposals made by all agro-hased industries like sugar edible
oils, plantation crops, poultry and dairy as not "reflecting the cause of
’lie Gumejs ui the Guu> lalioweis" Tliev sail that i uud oftlie uie-Riidjyd
proposals made py the agro-based industries are not tanner-centnc and are
designed to further the cause of the industry.
I kc
Ci'^uijuGGxioiis n I!c.gcfi tliux uhc government is senous shout
the cause of the fanners, ihe union finance minister, P Cliidanibaiam should
have called them tor Pre-Budget consultations. "The finance minister had
called for a Prc-Rndgct consultation with agriculturists on June 4. Rut not
a single farmers' organisation was invited. The finance minister thought it
wise to discuss with economists and agro-industi ics on agricultural issues,
iorgeiing that the farmers are pivotal in ensuring agricultural growth and
tor the growth in GPP,” alleged VM Singh convenor ofKisan Mazdoor
Sangathan.
He said that the fanners' are better placed to understand the problems they
face and can suggest appropriate remedial poiicy measures to the government.
The annual Budget of the government is not limited to only fiscal concerns,
it reflects the policies and programmes of the government.
Suggesting a policy measure for uplifting the farmers in the country, Mr
Singh suggested that the existing crop insurance scheme should be revamped.
He said that after the seeds are sown the insurance inspectors should make
on-the-spot survey at village level The risk cover should not only be for
also be extended to reimburse the fall rri crop productivity ou account or
several factors like spurious fertilisers, pesticides and seeds. He said
that the crop insurance scheme should cover all crops and be extended to all
Twrfs of the count™.
Mr Singh said that tire Centre should respect tire Supreme Cour t verdict of
May 5, 2004 which has allowed the state governments to fix the paces tor
sngarcancs to he paid by millers to farmers. Tn case the sugar mills arc
unable to pay the farmers the prices fixed by the state government, the
mills to clear the payments to farmers. In case the millers fail io pay the
farmers in time, legislation should be enacted tor mandatory takeover of
mills by either the concerned state government or by the Centre.
pool should be extended to cover ail pans of the country.
The Left parties supported All India. Kisan Sabha. (AIKS) and AU India
A^ricultursl Workers Union ^ATAWU^ in 3, joint mcmcrondum to the Primo
xviiiliStcf, Di' Tvl&iiiiiOiwii Siiniji Su^cSiCu iiiCicaSc hi plibliv iiiVcStiiiciit iii
irrigation, power, infrastructure and science and technology in agriculture.
They have demanded that in view of "the disastrous effects of unequal global
trade and crashing prices of agricultural commodities, the government must
take d firm stand on WTO related issues and must trir to m Ih* other
developing countucs io eliminate Ihe unjust and iniquitous piovisions in
the agreement on agriculture in WTO."
AIK'S and AIAWIT suggested (hat India should reintroduce quantitative
6/21/04
Page 7 of7
restrictions on import of those commodities which arc hcaviliy subsidised
above tile allowable miiliiiiuin in the developed countries. They Suggested that
India should ask for elimination of all the subsidy boxes - Green Box, Blue
Box and Amber Box - in the WTO previsions and fixation of a minimum
allowable subsidy on basis of per acre or per capita
AIKS and AIA.WU demanded strict implementation of land lefoims and
distribution of surplus land to agricultural workers and poor peasants..
Completion of land reforms must be acheived by abolishing intermediaries, by
bringing (enacy reforms such as fixation of fair rent, including the land
cultivated by shore croppers, by giving security of tenure and ownership
rights io tenants. Trie Centre should introduce a comprehensive law for
agricultural labouers guaranteeing employment, minimum wages, provident
■ .‘■•‘■u pension, gratuity, icavc, accident compensation, ani. unemployment
allowance. There should be low cost housing scheme for farm labourers.
me joint memorandum of AIKS and AIAWU also said that there shouid be
subsidised power supply to farm sector. Stringent steps should be taken
against supply of spurious seeds, fertilisers and pesticides. Farm
laiXjnrwc cmfll nnrt mwtinm fnrmxxrc cHnnl/i rrw pnev
nt Invirpr rntAC nF
interest. The credit-deposit ratio xur banks iri rural areas should be raised
to a minimum of 60 per cent and a minimum of 30 per cent of ail
institutional credit should go to the farm sector. There should be crackdown
on private money lender who charge higher rates of interest. Self-help
croups and micro-credit schemes m rural preas should be encouraged.
CuOpcintiVc Ci'edit StfuCtUic slluuld be Suciigtlicilcd aiid COiTUptiOil routed
out in the structure.
AIK’S and ATA WIT further called for increase in input subsidies to farmers
remuneratives prices for crops and market intervention by government
whcncvei uccc^baiy. They also buggc&icd a uuiupi ehemive uiup insuianve
scheme at mimimum premium rate, strengthening of public distribution system,
promotion of agro-based and food processing industries, animal husbandry,
pisciculture, horticulture, sericulture, dairy and poultry farming
Mr P Ciicngai Reddy 01 iiie Federation 01 Fanners’ Associations (Er A)
suggested bringing all iarm-related issues under one ministry, Rs 40,000
crore for completion of 400 major and medium irrigation projects, providing
tractors to unemployed youths belonging to scheduled castes and tribes and
lx. rx ,-x7 r-»ri! /xxr+.xx I XX ixn-nl nr.-, zxp jxX rn x7x r- I .-7 I r* .-7
•»-» m *x- *a lx zx ,-x F.-x'ir.-. X zx xx
vavrkvvcuu. viwivo m luiaj cuvao ai cuum.uicv.1 laivo, waiving vix ioavo v>n
pesticides, development of wastelands through contract farming, speeding up
seed replacement ratio with government assistance, achieving high milk yield
in cows. reorganising commodity boards, setting up of commodity boards for
T?vnri^cejnnc 7 7n1trr^itrirl! T’Pir
*
t»11 not’t
^#r»ccr‘QfYr»rf
hupI/Vscrv'ci 1 .mSil.CO.ii’v5p04/iuc5SongCi7 Change tile Way yuu COiimiuiiivate!
6/2'1/04
- Media
RF_EC_4_SUDHA.pdf
Position: 5698 (1 views)