FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-VII-9-2001.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
ISWOS
—r~v\
> /
VIKAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
on
oo c
Vol VII # 9/2001
INFORMATION BUI I ,ETTN
Bulldozing the South at Doha:
The MYTHS behind WTO’s Ministerial Conference
h
'The very complexity and ambiguous nature of the WTO’s Doha’s work
programme... may ultimately prove to be its Achilles heel. Or, to change the
metaphor to suit the rhetoric ofthe 'Bush Global War on Terrorism, it may be
akin to an attempt at rebuilding the twin towers of the World Trade Centre on
the desert sands ofDoha without laying the necessary steelpilefoundations.”
— C. Raghavan in “Third World Resurgence”, 2002
COM ME N'^1
espite the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre, New York, and the global recession the
WTO went ahead and held its 4dl Ministerial Conference at the Sheraton Hotel, Doha, Qatar,
from November 9-14,2001. The Conference was a follow-up to the Seattle fiasco, and was
aimed to launch a new round of trade negotiations. Since Seattle, the worldwide demonstrations
against WTO and other global forums — the World Bank, IMF and World Economic Forum
and their agenda of corporate globalisation — had grown sharper. Given the massive stakes
involved and trade interests the WTO in anxiety therefore chose this tiny country for their
Conference as the autocratic regime would minimise the repeat of a Seattle-like mass protests.
Doha was also seen as a way of placing it on the world conference-circuit map and making
Qatar as famous as Uruguay,
which (the emirate believed),
before the Punta del Este GATT
meeting, was known only for its
soccer!! The WTC bombing had
also added a new dimension to
this fear. Butwith West Asia seen
as a “terrorist” bastion, the Doha
Conference was viewed as an easy
target. Deferment of the
Conference had therefore been
very much on the cards.
What Took Place at Doha!
FACTS against MYTHS
FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION ONLY
.
However, having succeeded in railroading most
countries, including India behind it, against
terrorism, the Organizers exploited this global
unification. The WTO Conference was seen as an
opportunity to restore confidence in the economy
and get it out off the recession using global trade
that the North is desperate to (further) prise open
the markets of the South.
In Doha, unlike at Seattle, the group of rich
countries called the QUAD (US, EU, Canada and
Japan) came well prepared — ironing out the
differences between themselves on their respective
positions on some of the contentious issues — and
ruthlessly pursued the agenda of introducing non
trade items into the negotiations. The negotiations
were held in pressure-cooker conditions in which
the QUAD just steamrolled the South to accept
major elements of a “New Round” with new issues
but masking it under another name viz., ‘Work
Programme” that most of the South had been
rejecting right up to the scheduled final day. All
kinds of stratagems — manipulations and
Machiavellian maneuvers even outright lies and
veiled threats—were resorted to. At the venue they
had people going in and out to replace each other
like a relay race. The representatives of the South
on the other hand had the minister and one adviser
who had to sit through from the afternoon until 4
a.m., so it required a combination of technical
ability and ability to withstand fatigue!
Doha in the meanwhile had been transformed into
a huge fortress with 21000 US marines deployed
all around. The local Government even took
permission from the WTO before issuing visas to
foreign delegates some ofwho were denied this right
merely for being leaders and activists of
“inconvenient” action groups. The move was to
placate the WTO that there were no “rowdy”
protests to disrupt the proceedings of the
Conference. On the eve of the Conference, however,
there were demonstrations in which one protestor
died in police firing.
Even as the preparations for the Conference
proceedings were being finalised a new element had
influenced the Conference. A sudden shift in US
foreign policy priorities owing to the WTC
bombing presaged a return to development issues
motivated mainly by ideological and geopolitical
FACTS against MYTHS
consideration Accordingly, the Doha Declaration
called for the WTO to cooperate more closely with
the World Bank and IMF for the purposes of
achieving greater coherence in global economic
policy-making!
At the Conference one of the most important issues
was whether the WTO should abide by its present
mandate and focus urgently on redressing the
imbalances in its rules, or expand its powers by
negotiating new agreements that would further
restrict development policies in the South. It issued
a declaration, the Doha Declaration, the overall
approach ofwhich included negotiations on services
— on agriculture, on industrial tariffs, and the
implementation issues — including trade and the
environment plus the so-called Work Programme
to discuss the “Singapore Issues” (Investment,
Competition and Transparency). Representatives
the South had however made it very clear beforW
and even at Doha that they did not want negotiations
to start on such new issues but needed to concentrate
on the implementation issues. Their views were
however disregarded and even squashed through
manipulations, arm-twisting and through so-called
Green Room sessions (that is, where a limited
number ofcountries negotiating in secret) and drafts
of declaration that were biased right from the start.
The whole process that went into producing the
Doha Declaration was highly lopsided and shocking
in its blatant disregard of the sensitivities and
concerns of some of the poorest countries of the
South resorting to outright discrimination and
manipulation. The end result was a Declaration that
according to developed countries gave birth to u
development agenda but in reality is absolutely anti
development. It failed to reflect the views of many
countries of the South, placing them in a position
of great disadvantage right from Day 1. Even the
manner in which the negotiation processes were
conducted failed to observe any sense of protocol
or decorum. Facilitators or ‘green men selected to
facilitate negotiations were allowed to decide on the
procedures for consultations and drafting. They were
also chosen from the same camp — those countries
that simply wanted a new round of negotiations!
Thus, what happened at Doha was like no other
conference, where normally a delegate agree to
exchange views, which are then accurately (more or
less) recorded in a report and eventually has a chance
to be agreed on. Nothing of this occurred. Instead,
the Doha Conference was trumpeted as a “great
success”! The major northern powers had scripted
an Agreement that created the mirage of a triumph
for an “Equitable Global Trading System”. They did
so by waving an illusion that all countries, rich and
poor, big and small had all gained something.
However, the South and the World Development
Movement, among others, described the whole
Conference as a disaster for the world s poor. Indeed,
the South gained merely peanuts in the form of an
acknowledgement of their concerns but nothing
concrete to undo or repair the damages and
disadvantages they experience under the WTO
regime. As for India, despite a vigorous fight in the
early stages of the Conference its representative,
Commerce Minister Murasoli Maran, finally caved
in to the pressures by the Organisers! On November
^12,2001 Kenya announced at a Meeting of the
African group that India had decided to join the
US and EU bandwagon. India had accepted the Final
Declaration, including all the new issues, which
further worsens the imbalances and deteriorates the
situation in every sector of the economy, particularly
agriculture. According to S.P. Shukla “What has
happened at Doha is the beginning ofthe final assault
of global capital on the economic sovereignty of
rhe nation states, particularly of the third world".
This is an ominous development. It makes it
essential to not only take a close, hard look at the
whole Conference process but how a) the
Conference was exploited by the WTO
representatives in the Nordi to manipulate the whole
process in their favour that has very serious
^implications for the poor of the South and b) help
piece together the farce behind the tall claim that
the Doha Conference was pro-Development.
MYTH: Unlike the previous negotiations the
Doha Conference was a Work Programme and
not a new round oftrade negotiations.
FACT: This so-called Work Programme was
nothing but a facade—just another name for what
was completely a new round of negotiations —
taking in new issues viz., investment, competition
policy, government procurement and trade
facilitation! These were issues that continue to be
strongly opposed by majority of the South.
Nowhere in the Doha Declaration it was mentioned
Q FACTS against MYTHS
as a “New Agenda” for a “New Round”. Merely
using a nomenclature like a Work Programme does
not, however, alter the pith and substance of the
process.
The earlier WTO “Rounds” were based on a specific
pattern : i) the Ministerial Declaration lays down a
broad negotiating mandate for every subject on the
agenda, a time-frame is indicated, a Trade
Negotiations Committee is set up to supervise and
direct the negotiations. The concept of treating the
negotiations as a “single undertaking” was invented
in the Uruguay Round. All these elements were
unmistakably present at the Doha Ministerial
Declaration.
No negotiations of the type envisaged have ever
been completed in one Ministerial meeting; not even
in two years. Postponing negotiations is not at all a
“significant gain” and thereby shortens the duration
of time to finalise the negotiations within two years
i.e. 2003 and 2004. For instance,
The Uruguay Round, lasted 8 years. It has
always been the practice that the broad
negotiating mandate in the ministerial
declaration would be followed by a process of
elaboration of the mandate into specific elements
of the multilateral discipline;
The process took anywhere between 3 to 5
years. Itis this process thatwas launched at Doha
and the talk of “postponement”.
On examining the language and content of this
“Work Programme" under specific subjects one
will see through this whole argument. For
example, on all the 3 important new issues, viz.,
investment, competition, policy and
government procurement, the mandate starts
with the acknowledgement: “Recognising the
case for a multilateral framework”. This amounts
to a clear decision in favour of elaboration of a
multilateral discipline.
Given this background, the “Work Programme” is
not at all a gain. This time, the duration period to
complete and finalise negotiations in the agenda has
been curtained only two and three years.
MYTH: The concerns andfears ofthe South over
the Competition Agreement in the Doha
Declaration is unfounded. It is instead in their
best interest as it would have more enforcement of
antitrust rules globally.
FACT: Competition, at face value, appears like a
boon. But these are concerns that originate from a
EU proposal to promot and enable TNCs to have
the right to compete equally with local firms. This
means putting an end to policies and practices that
favour or give an advantage to local firms in the
interest of building up domestic industry. Thus, they
were concerned that such an Agreement, based on
the EU’s concepts and motivations, would lead to
the problem ofMNCs entering and wiping out the
small locally owned companies. It was also felt that
first there was the need to build capacity to
understand the issue, and then to have a national
infrastructure to deal with competition issues—both
prior to commencing any negotiations, let alone
having MNC rules. Thirdly, most of the South do
not yet have competition laws or policies and are
rightly concerned that a WTO Agreement would
impose obligations on them to have a particular
model of competition law and policy that would
ironically, enable TNCs to monopolise their
economies whilst rendering indigenous companies
uncompetitive and thus redundant.
The concerns are also linked to the so-called
Singapore issues and what impact it will have in
limiting the ability and right of the South to
formulate Development policies and strategies. For
instance, the Investment issue would give
unprecedented rights to MNC investors, such as
right to sue governments for loss of future profits
due to government regulations (a feature of NAFTA
that is increasingly being invoked). There is a specific
proposal that foreign capital have the freedom to
move across national borders, without let or
hindrance, caused by nation states. This will be
introduced by a re-wording ofthe GATS to include,
“comprehensive mulatilateral discipline on
investments...” which will result in the removal of
all controls on Fils, FDIs, repatriation of profits;
free entry of foreign capital into any and every sector,
without any controls allowed by the local
governments; and bringing currency convertibility
on capital account (which has wrought havoc on
the currencies of those countries that have already
introduced this).
C FACTS against MYTHS
4" A ‘Competition Policy” would further entail
the removal of all preferences to local
industry, small scale sector, handicrafts,
thereby treating mega TNCs on par with
the small local business. This will act to only
further destroy local industry, unable to face
'competition from the TNCs.
4- The so-called ‘Transparency in Government
Procurement means that global capital will
be able to tie the hands of government
regarding the public sector, social welfare,
public services and controls on any and every
economic activity oflocal governments.
4 And, ‘Trade Facilitation means breaking
down trade barriers even more thoroughly
than what has been achieved in the earlier
WTO Rounds. It calls for further
restrictions on customs tariffs, in rhe name"
of common norms.
If all these Clauses are to be implemented, together
with another 15 areas proposed, it will result in the
total dismemberment of a country’s sovereignty,
placing.it completely at the mercy ofglobal capital.
The disastrous impact of the decade of‘liberalisation
is already to be seen. One can imagine the extent of
devastation caused by such excessive dismantling of
economic and political controls
MYTH: The Doha Conference was conducted
democratically with transparency and thus
legitimacy and all decisions had been arrived at
on the basis ofa consensus.
FACT: On the contrary! The decision-making)
process, among others, had not only been
undemocratic but a dangerous process too. (This
point was dealt with in the earlier issue of FAM
viz.,#8,1999). That is, a process that emerged since
2000 with the so-called Consultation Process where
the Chair of the General Council or a- Deputy
Director General present at a closed-door meeting,
now dubbed “Small open-ended Meetings”, will
submit a briefing of their “understanding” of the
decisions reached at the meeting, or their “sense” of
where members are with regards to positions. This
“understanding” and “sense” is then reflected in
Drafts such as the Ministerial Text and the
Implementation Text or the Agriculture Text or the
TRIPS and Health Ministerial Text. As will be noted
4
Average Size of Missions
The North-. 7.38 persons
The South-. 3.51
Range ofDisparities within the Sosith missions-. India has 6 delegates while Mozambique has 1
There are 29 non-resident delegations in Geneva. These missions do not attend Meetings nor
raise an opinion. They are counted as “consensus” into the process.
WTO Staff. 410 from the North, 94 from the South, 512 total WTO Staff.
Regular Meetings of the WTO-. 10 Daily Meetings. Many of them overlap so that smaller
delegations cannot be represented at even the regular meetings of the WTO.
Representations at Meetings-. When some delegations are physically present at some of these
meetings they represent themselves strongly as blocks. The African group often speak on behalf
of 41 countries, but rather than looking at this group statement as that of 41 countries, it is
instead seen as a statement of 1 member! Similarly, with the LDCs! Tanzania speaks on behalf
of 30 LDCs, but (again) it is represented as Tanzania! Even though most of the time, at least 6
LDCs speak up in support of the LDC position (Bangladesh, Djibouti, Guinea, Haiti, Lesotho,
Senegal, Uganda and Zambia), the LDC position is referred to as 1! Similarly, while some
African delegations give support to Zimbabwe, the spokesperson to the African Group, the
position is weighted as l.This creates serious problem of misrepresentation and the weight
behind statements. The LDCs and the African Group combined make up exactly half of the
membership of the WTO!
the people who provide the outcome of the
“consultations” poorly reflect (see below) this
“sense”. At best, it is inaccurate and imbalanced, at
worst, it is biased to the interests of the North and
most powerful countries of the WTO. (In this
context see Box on next page on some statistics based
.on survey of delegations)
MYTH: The environment/trade link has always
been a regular feature of previous trade
negotiations and was present even prior to the
Uruguay Round of GATT. It cannot therefore be
deemed a newfactor as made out to be. This pro
ecology concern is clearly evident even in the WTO
text, Art.XX of GATT.
the large economies in the South e.g. China, etc.
themselves have started to industrialise.
The WTO is indeed inherently anti-ecological!
Though it is true that this (infamous) Art. does
concern itself with the environment it, however,
allows restrictions on trade on the grounds of
environmental and health protection arising from
the consumption of a good or service. However,
this is not the same when it comes to the production
of goods and services!
“The WTO does appear to allow trade restriction
in order to prevent Environmental damage which
results from the consumption of a good. However,
with regard to damage resulting from the production
FACT: First and foremost, from a historical angle,
there is no record of environment-related issue on
eco-friendly industrialisation during the 18,h and
of a good or service, trade restrictions are generally
not allowed under the WTO...in support of
regulations which control those foreign production
19“ centuries when countries, now dubbed the
processes which are not detectable in the final
Developed Market Economies (DMEs) had
industrialised. This period was also an era when most
of the South were its colonies. The issue, therefore,
product. Furthermore, the WTO does not allow
nations to implement trade restrictions in response
to environmental damage which occurs outside their
jurisdiction”.
is of a recent origin and introduced mainly when
C FACTS against MYTHS
In short, what this means is that under WTO rules
there are no grounds for restricting “like” goods and
services that are produced under different conditions.
So a good produced using methods that are
extremely environmentally damaging but that is
otherwise the “same” as like goods produced, using
different production methods, cannot be subject to
trade restrictions on the grounds that it was produced
using or resulting in environmental degradation or
pollution. This is untenable:
“The WTO does not allow nations to distinguish
between “like” products which have very different
production methods. Nations have traditionally
been allowed to do as they please within their own
borders, but in an ecologically interdependent world,
where production processes in one country can affect
the global environment, such a notion may be
outdated”. Hence, the well known environmentalist
view of the “trade liberalisation” agenda and the
WTO in particular as inherently anti-ecological.
Finally, a review of WTO rulings on environmental
or conservation measures reveals two consistent and
common themes. The first is the expansive reading
given to rules that limit government options that
might, even indirectly, interfere with trade. The
second is the exceedingly narrow interpretation given
to trade provisions that might create space for
environmental exceptions to the free-trade
orthodoxy. This double whammy has spelled
disaster for every environmental or conservation
regulation that has found itself in the cross hairs of
a trade dispute panel. In fact, none has survived the
encounter and, in every case, trade panels have found
several grounds on which to rule against the
environmental regulation.
At best, the environmental concerns — listed in the
Doha Declaration — have been part of the discussions
on CTE, which was set up in 1995 but till date no
conclusions have been successfully arrived at.
MYTH: The Doha Conference was a great success.
It helped reverse the recession in the US, EU,
Japan, etc, and also had a positive impact on the
countries ofthe South in terms of trade gain,etc.
FACT: On the contrary! Whatever the gains of
global trade and its rules trade in its immediate
effects only distributes or redistributes benefits.
Recovery and growth out of the current recession
FACTS against MYTHS
depends not on trade nor on further shifting the
burdens ofadjustment from the North to rhe South,
but on co-ordinated global macroeconomic
expansion and policies to enable the poorer countries
to buy the goods and services of the North. Besides,
mere measures to force open the markets of the
South, or attempting to create ‘high-consumption’
enclaves in the economies of the South for Northern
suppliers (ofgoods and services) cannot lift the world
economy of recession. And, indeed, there are few
signs of this happening, not even as a result of the
so-called global war on terrorism and the boosts that
war and military build-up supposedly provide to
economies.
Furthermore, apart from the ‘Negotiating Agenda’,
the Doha Conference had issued two other
declarations — one, on some 40 implementation
issues, and the second, a policy statement dealing
with patents and public health. The latter two are
more statement of intentions and no way impinge
on the main ‘Negotiating Agenda’.
All rhe implementation concerns of the South,
except that on the imposition of anti-dumping
duties by the rich North, that were part of the final
Statement, were merely statements of good
intention. All the important implementation issues
were made a part of the negotiations of tire Doha
Round. This was exactly what India had been
opposing; yet it claimed that Doha was a victor}'!
Moreover, the US stonewalled on a minor relaxation
of textile quotas (India’s largest export item), which
was slated for settlement at the Conference. Also,
under TRIPS, India wanted an extension of the scc,i§^
of protection provide the Geographical Indication"
(GI) over Basmati rice, Darjeeling (for tea),
Kolhapure for chappals, and Alfonso for mangoes.
This extension was also not given in rhe Declaration!
In the area of Dispute Settlement, India specifically
Wanted the exclusion of any NGO or referee to
interfere in the dispute. This too was rejected;
In the area of agriculture and services the outcome
of Doha was no better. In agriculture, the perspective
of negotiations will continue to be biased towards
the heavily subsidised goods of the developed
countries'. Even on the much-disputed question of
export subsidies in agriculture, France was able to
dilute the provision for the phasing out ofall export
subsidies.
6
In services, many new aspects have been introduced.
There was no departure from the very narrow
approach regarding the movement of labour.
Moreover no cognisance has been taken about the
basic importance of the delivery of basic services,
particularly health and education, nothwithstanding
the much trumpeted separate statement on public
health as a gain for the poor in the South.
The related claim that medicines pertaining to
endemic illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and diseases
such asTB and Malaria, etc. has been excluded from
the purview of TRIPS cannot be considered a
“significant gain”. For the North has already agreed
to exclude such medicines anyway but confined only
during times of emergency. The concerned country
can issue compulsory license to produce medicines
and import medicines, pertaining to these illnesses
nd diseases Moreover, it was not in India’s interest
ut 'de facto’, what is already being implemented
in Brazil, and to a lesser extent South Africa. Second,
the practical advantages of-this statement are
minimal.
To take the first point. Starting in 1994, the
Brazilian government urged local companies to start
making drugs to treat AIDS. The government
invoked “national emergency” provisions, in its
patent laws to start manufacturing low cost anti
AIDS drugs. The US took Brazil to the WTO
disputes panel, but later retracted in the face of
adverse public opinion. It is now this that has been
legitimised.
Second, in the countries of the South there is
uydfpetual ‘public health emergency’ yet rarely has
“one ever been proclaimed. For all the propaganda
around AIDS, TB, malaria, Diarrhoea, etc.,
continue to be the regular killers. For example, less
than two-fifths of Indians and Bangladeshis, have
firm access to modern medicine. So, in order words,
it means that TRIPS must be implemented for the
regular daily killers, and only on an exceptional
conditions (an emergency) could it be bypassed. In
addition the statement is itselfvague, its legal values
is uncertain, and it simultaneously reiterates the
member’s commitment to the TRIPS agreement.
In addition, the ‘concession excludes imports/
exports from compulsory licensing. That means that
most of the South like Africa, etc., lacking an
indigenous manufacturing base, cannot procure
essential drugs cheaply. Nor can competitive Indian
manufacturers export them.
So, notwithstanding all the media hype, the actual
benefits from this statement will be minimal, while
the TRIPS regime will continue to get implemented,
giving windfall profits to the mega drugTNCs.
MYTH: The principles offree trade and the
market were also part of the target of the attack
on the World Trade Centre by terrorists and anti
globalisation elements.
FACT: The North conveniently exploited the WTC
bombing as a pretext for launching a new round of
negotiations at Doha. Even as bodies were being
extricated from the WTC debris, the US Trade
Representative (USTR), R. Zoelick, stated, the
“... role that trade had in fighting terrorism... ”. As
Bush’s hatchet man, he had argued in a speech that
“...trade legislation was needed to signal that the
US would not retreat from its responsibility to
defend free trade against the terrorists and critics of
globalisation...”. In this way, anti-globalisation
activists were being lumped together with the
'terrorists’. The Chairperson of the Federal Reserve
Bank, A. Greenspan, was even cruder in linking the
new trade round to September 11. He stated, “.. .as
a consequence of the spontaneous and almost
universal support that we received from around the
world, an agreement on a new round of multilateral
trade negotiations now seems feasible...”. This
sinister campaign to link new trade round to the
so-called war against terrorism was orchestrated
jointly by the EU Trade Commissioner, Pascal
Lamy, and Zoelick who argued that the best
response to the 'terrorist’ attacks would be to launch
a new round!
So, it is not surprising that the revised Draft
Ministerial Declaration, released on October 27 (i.e.
not even a fortnight before the Doha Meet) which
had been arbitrarily prepared by the Chairperson of
the General Council at US behest, was far more
damaging to the South than the earlier draft. It
negated most of the earlier objections from countries
like India; it failed to consider the various alternative
viewpoints, and, in fact added a host of new points
that had never been discussed previously!
MYTH: The Doha Conference was also a
Development Round that will lead to all-round
economic developmentfor all countries including
the South,
binding effect; the powerful pharmaceutical lobby
which has benefited from the TRIPS-sanctioned
global TNC money can be depended upon (when
the interests of civil society groups moves on to other
issues) to try and undercut the political gain.
FACT: More than being a Development agenda,
the outcome of the Doha Conference was
profoundly anti-Development. The Conference was
rather the realisation of the American vision of the
‘free market’ or as expressed in the book, the Rogue
State (Blum, 2001), the ‘privatisation of the world
or globalisation. Along with the EU, the US
succeeded in taking a big leap in their drive to open
up new markets and new economic sectors in the
South
References:
1.
Dhar, B.An Assessment of the Doha Ministerial
Conference, Mainstream, (Annual), New Delhi, 2001
2.
Shukla, S.P. The Challenge of Doha: WTO vs People,
Centre for Study ofTrade System and Development, New
3.
4.
By advancing the so-called Singapore issues into the
WTO machinery, Doha brought nearer a
development disaster of great proportion as the
proposed new agreements would close ofF many
development policies and possibilities and result in
re-colonisation and unprecedented power to mega
TNCs at the cost of sovereignty and peoples rights
and needs (under the facade of ‘efficiency’ and
competi tiveness’).
Delhi, 2001
Sharma, Dr. B.L. War-like Manipulations by the Rich:
India Lost Again, Nai Azadi, #6, Allahabad,2001
"Outcome of the Doha Ministerial Conference of the
WTO: Challenges for Civil Society in Maharashtra",
Focus on the Global South, Mumbai, 2001
5.
Shukla, S. P. The Doha Debacle, Frontline, December
6.
7,2001
Everything but Devclopment:Thc Doha WTO Outcome
& Process, Third World Resurgence, #135^
7.
136,Penang,2001
,
Shrybman, S. The WTO: The New World Constitutions
Laid Bare, The Ecologist, #4, London, 1999
Pha, A., WTO At Doha: “A Disaster for the Worlds
Poor”, New Age, #3, New Delhi, 2002
9. Cole, M.A. Trade Liberalisation, Economic Growth, and
the Environment, Edward Elgar, London, 200
10. Arvind, The Doha Meet: Tightening the Neo-colonial
Noose, People’s March, January, New Delhi,2002
8.
In addition, the Conference also adopted a separate
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public
Health, and a decision on implementation issues
that, despite many claims, is devoid of any serious
economic content to benefit the South (The 3 texts
are available on the WTO website, www.wto.org.)
The Declaration appears as a big gain for the South
but it is a political declaration with no legal or
11.
Hensman.R.Workers’ Rights in a Globalised World
Economy,Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, Mumbai, 2002
12.
WTO Talks: Standing Firm?, Down to Earth, #14, New
Delhi, 2001.
13. After II September, Bretton Woods Update, #25,
October 200
X
X
Acknowledgement: We are grateful to Raghav Narsalay of Focus on Global South,
Mumbai for his valuable inputs and comments, in preparing this issue of FAM.
X X X
Please feel free to reproduce material from this publication but with due credit.
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fac(s Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
BOOK-POST
Produced and Published by:
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA
S : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Fax : 889 8941
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
Printed by : Omega Offset, 4574, Shetty Gaily
Belgaum 590 002. S 0831-424124 / 433429
The Secretary
Community Health Cell
No.367 Srinivasa Nilaya
Jakkasandra, I Main, I Block
Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034
Not viewed