Jam Against the WTO
Some photos from last Monday's Jam and a rundown of how the WTO affects human rights, environmental protections and national and economic sovereignty.
I’ve come here today as a concerned citizen, to voice my unease about the trade agreements being negotiated in Hong Kong at the WTO Ministerial this week, and to help raise awareness about the nature of the agreements and what it means to allow these decisions to be made for us.
One of the more sinister enforcing powers ceded to the WTO has given the organization the power to directly challenge any member state’s constitution if it perceives a barrier to trade within it’s framework.
‘The obstacles to free trade that the WTO wants to remove are actually national, state and provincial laws made on behalf of the environment, small farmers, public health, consumers, food safety, local culture, small business, labour and hundreds of other concerns…that may be inconvenient for corporate free trade.’ (Peet 2003: 194)
Agricultural Subsidies & the West’s Free Ride
The WTO Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is a controversial set of arrangements that have negative consequences for industry stability, food security and human rights in developing countries.
The AoA helps consolidates the strength of big agribusiness and trans national traders in commodities.
Export production in agricultural goods requires substantial infrastructure, as well as access to large amounts of land, water and technology for the large-scale production required by industry. These are not available to many farmers in developing countries, who usually operate small, localised business. This allows big agribusiness firms like Monsanto and Cargill (Lam et al 2004: 59), who receive huge subsidies from the US government, to overproduce goods and export the excess to developing country markets, selling it for less than the cost of production.
This practice, called dumping, suffocates local small-scale farmer’s business, who cannot compete with the low prices of imports. Not only does this practice exploit the poverty of people in developing countries, it unfairly takes advantage of trading rules that have been set up in favour of corporate food production.
The AoA has huge implications for the human rights of people living in poor countries. Not surprisingly, limited access to food threatens the health and wellbeing of many people living in developing countries. The rights to life, health, food, adequate living standards and work are all affected by the corporatisation of the food industry, particularly in agriculture.
Expanding Liberalisation through Non Agricultural Market Access
The NAMA negotiations will encourage negative developmental and negative environmental impacts all over the world through the complete liberalisation of natural resources on the global market.
‘…all products that are not covered by the agriculture negotiation or the service negotiations are aimed to be liberalised. NAMA products include fish and fishery products, wood and forestry products, electronics, manufactures, automotive products, machinery, textiles, clothing, leather, chemical products, and mining products.’ (Southern African Regional Poverty Network 2005)
Again barriers to trade that the WTO will seek to reduce at Hong Kong will include measures put in place to protect the environment including restrictions on trading chemicals and viruses, certification standards for the timber industry and other import restrictions that have been enabled for environmental reasons.
Even some WTO members have expressed concern over the environmental dangers that could be an outcome of the negotiations, especially with regard to conservation, stating that sector specific tariff reductions in forestry ‘seriously impedes the promotion of sustainable forest management, and does not represent the position of importing countries.’ While also recognising that liberalisation of fisheries ‘should not be pursued [zero-for-zero] since it will abolish all tariffs regardless of the level of fishery resources.’ (Friends of the Earth 2004)
There are associated impacts for Social welfare as well. NAMA agreements threaten some product labelling and marketing and packaging standards that have been put in place for the public good (Friends of the Earth report pg 2). The negotiations have no mechanism in place for making a distinction between NTBs that have been put in place for the protection of the environment, or society, and those put in place for corporate gain.
The NAMA negotiations also seek to lower tariffs that have been put in place to protect certain sectors of national industry, particularly infant industry and the protection of domestic economic development.
By giving equal investor rights to foreigners we will actually remove our right to economic sovereignty, the right to favour and exploit our local economies, our own communities and their livelihoods. Instead foreign will investors flood our markets, and repatriate the profits.
These are some of the reasons that the WTO is really bad for you. If you are concerned about the decisions being made this week in Hong Kong then pick up a flyer and get in touch with both the government and the civil society organizations that advocate for trade justice & democracy. There are some pretty good networks out there, and join any solidarity events taking place this week throughout the Ministerials’ duration.
Please lobby your MP, fax the prime minister and our trade negotiations minister MR Jim Sutton and let them know that your human rights and the protection of the environment, our communities and our natural resources are not barriers to trade that can be negotiated away as if they were commercial products. Please say no to the WTO!
Thanks!
Photos copyright Cameron Burnell, 2005
Related
