NAMA draft repudiated by developing country groups at WTO

Those criticizing the draft included the NAMA-11 alliance, the ACP Group, the African Group, the LDC Group as well as individual countries. Some of the criticisms almost amounted to a vote of no confidence on the paper. The NAMA-11 gave an incisive critique of what it called six basic flaws in the paper, including that it prejudges the outcome of the negotiations, turns the Round's agriculture focus around by asking developing countries to pay heavily with NAMA, re-interpreting the Doha mandate, and undermining the Hong Kong agreement to have comparable ambition for NAMA and agriculture.

Venezuela stated that it regarded the document as only reflecting the position of the Chair, with no legal standing whatsoever. Instead, the governments' papers containing positions of members should constitute the basis for discussion. Nigeria did not believe that the Chair's text provides a substantial basis for moving the Doha Round negotiations forward.

Among the others joining in raising their disagreement and widely criticizing the text were India, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, China and Indonesia in the late afternoon sessions.

As the last to speak, Argentina's Ambassador Alberto Dumont concluded by an amazing statement stressing: "This range of coefficients (proposed by the Chair for developing countries) is unacceptable for my country today, tomorrow, in September, and as long as the Round lasts. This is the position of my delegation and my country and it will not change."

The Indian Ambassador, Ujal Singh Bhatia, concluded his detailed and devastating critique of the modalities paper by telling the Chair: "Your proposals have created an extremely piquant situation which has sharply polarized the negotiations. It will require all of us to exercise enormous restraint to bring the negotiations back to a semblance of balance."

Bolivia's Ambassador Angelica Navarro said that the proposals were "totally unacceptable" and could not be the basis for negotiations.

Chakravarthi Raghavan, a known WTO specialist said, "In all my experience of following GATT and WTO, over 29 years, I have not seen an occasion where a text from the Chair has received such criticisms and repudiation from a range of developing countries - in fact, by more than half of the WTO membership,".

In contrast, the United States, European Union and other developed countries were positive about the draft and had no hesitation in wanting it as the basis for negotiations starting in September, although they said that the paper did not go far enough in cutting developing countries' tariffs.

The points on which the criticisms were made have been noted below.

Firstly, the draft text prejudges the outcome of the NAMA negotiations before members have had an opportunity to negotiate these outcomes. This is in contrast with the agriculture draft text where members' positions are substantially preserved, allowing them significant scope to negotiate further.

Second the draft text has tried to shift the focus of the Doha round from agriculture as the leading ambition, with the developed countries making the greatest reforms in their trade distorting policies. Instead, the draft text makes developing countries pay first in the NAMA negotiations and requires them to make severe cuts in their industrial tariffs.

Third, as per the NAMA-11 the imbalance in contributions of the developed and developing countries would be exacerbated.

Fourth, the draft has called for contributions by developing countries that are not consistent with their development needs and levels of development. Indeed, it is the logic of the need to satisfy the commercial interests of the developed countries, rather than the development objectives of the Doha round that permeates the Chair's text.

Apart from this there has been a series of allegations against the draft text based on trying to act unilaterally and breaching norms that were reached in the Hong Kong ministerial meet. Also there have been accusations that the draft text only takes into account the voices, and therefore the interests, of the developed countries.

Despite such criticisms, and strong comments by veteran trade analysts, the chair criticized the members, regretting that they had maintained their current positions. If they don't go out of them, there is no deal possible.

Rest of the countries like Chile, Mexico and Singapore which are asking for major cuts in developing countries' tariffs, supported the Stephenson paper, which they saw as balanced.

Finally, it was pointed out by the chair that the document had no legal entity and should be taken as just another document like many others but not as a basis for negotiations, as it is biased. The members have now pinned their hopes on a genuine multilateral process inclusive of all interests but the proposals currently exclude the positions of a large number of countries and have effectively shut them out from the negotiations. Instead of facilitating negotiations, the proposals have put many members in the position of negotiating with the Chair, which is not a healthy process.

Amidst such resentment and chaos, it is time to wait and watch the fate of the draft text proposal and strive reverting to a healthy and fruitful negotiations process.

Country representatives of Uganda, Nigeria and Venezuela have been the most vocal to raise and point out the fallacies apart from the other members.

Resource: TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues  (July 07/16)
Released on:  28 July 2007