| I thank you, Mr Chairman,
and your Government for hosting this 4th Ministerial Conference and for
the excellent arrangements and hospitality. I also welcome the delegations
of the Peoples Republic of China and Chinese Taipei in our midst. India
has consistently supported the accession of China to WTO and we are happy
to see it realized, bringing greater universality to our organization.
I am constrained to point out that the draft Ministerial Declaration is
neither fair nor just to the view points of many developing countries including
my own on certain key issues. It is negation of all that was said by a
significant number of developing countries and least-developing countries.
We cannot escape the conclusion that it accommodates some view points while
ignoring "others". The forwarding letter most surprisingly and shockingly
also does not dwell on the substantive differences and focuses more on
what are individual assessments. Even after these were reiterated in the
strongest possible terms in the General Council on 31 October and 1 November,
we recognize that there is a refusal to reflect these points in a substantive
manner even in the forwarding letter. The only conclusion that could be
drawn is that the developing countries have little say in the agenda setting
of the WTO. It appears that the whole process was a mere formality and
we are being coerced against our will. Is it not then meaningless for the
draft declaration to claim that the needs and interests of the developing
countries have been placed at the heart of the Work Programme? After the
setback at Seattle, all of us want Doha to be a success. Success, however,
does not necessarily require over-reaching objectives or launch of a "comprehensive"
round. Also the global unity achieved in the wake of the most unfortunate
and tragic event of September 11 should not be undermined by proposing
an agenda, which would split the WTO membership. Rather than charting a
divisive course in unknown waters, let this Conference provide a strong
impetus to the on-going negotiations on agriculture and services, and the
various mandated reviews that by themselves form a substantial work programme
and have explicit consensus. We cannot be held hostage to unreasonable
demands that concessions be made for carrying forward what are already
mandated negotiations. Nor can one accept the argument that there is mandate
only for commencing certain negotiations and not for completing them. Progressive
reform in agriculture now requires elimination of the large-scale domestic
support and other trade distorting subsidies and the removal of all unfair
barriers facing farm exports of developing countries. At the same time,
considering the critical dependence on agriculture by large rural populations
in developing countries, we need to adequately provide for their food and
livelihood security and for promoting rural development. Similarly, in
services, facilitating the movement of professionals, must receive priority
attention. WTO has to recognize the existing development deficit in various
WTO agreements and take necessary remedial action. WTO has also to recognize
that development strategy has to be related to country specific situations.
The "one size fits all approach" has clearly failed to deliver. The asymmetries
and imbalances in the Uruguay Round agreements, non-realization of anticipated
benefits and non-operational and non-binding nature of special and differential
provisions have been the basis for implementational issues and concerns
raised by a large number of developing countries right from 1998. Expectations
rose when the May 2000 decision was adopted by the General Council to find
meaningful solutions at the latest by the Fourth Ministerial. The draft
decision on implementation related issues and concerns before us have addressed
some issues but left many more unresolved. Even among those addressed,
the manner of resolution has left many gaps. We must make sincere efforts
at this Conference to resolve the outstanding issues or give clear directions
on how to deal with them. Notwithstanding our disappointment, we have already
indicated in Geneva that we are prepared to join a consensus in favour
of adopting the decision proposed as a package. It would be appropriate
to take this item first in the Business Session and adopt the decision.
In relation to market access, even after all the Uruguay Round concessions
have been implemented by industrialized countries, significant trade barriers
in the form of tariff peaks and tariff escalation continue to affect many
developing country exports. These will clearly need to be squarely addressed.
Meanwhile, sensitive industries in developing countries including small
scale industries sustaining a large labour force cannot be allowed to be
destroyed. New issues or new agreements will obviously extract new prices
and developing countries are hardly prepared for the same. This becomes
particularly relevant now since negotiations for agreements on several
new areas are being proposed even while the study process is on. In the
areas of Investment, Competition, Trade Facilitation or Transparency in
Government Procurement, basic questions remain even on the need for a multilateral
agreement. Most importantly, do the developing countries have the capacity
to deal with them? Will we be able to say that they do not impinge strongly
on domestic policies that are well removed from trade? Are the basic trade
principles like non-discrimination or market access appropriate for dealing
with issues like Investment and Competition? Would the Marrakesh remit
for WTO which talks only of multilateral trade relations permit these other
issues to be covered? We are very doubtful if we can give affirmative replies
to all these questions. It is our considered view that we need to carefully
study them further before rushing to decisions. In any case, the Singapore
Declaration requires an explicit consensus for any decision to move to
negotiations. Let us therefore wait till an explicit consensus emerges
on these issues. We firmly oppose any linkage between trade and labour
standards. The Singapore Declaration had once and for all dealt with this
issue and there is no need to refer to it again. Similarly, on environment
we are strongly opposed to the use of environmental measures for protectionist
purposes and to imposition of unilateral trade restrictive measures. We
are convinced that the existing WTO rules are adequate to deal with all
legitimate environmental concerns. We should firmly resist negotiations
in this area which are not desirable, now or later. We consider them as
Trojan horses of protectionism. The Uruguay Round Agreement on TRIPS has
invited strong reactions from developing country stakeholders. It is important
that negotiations are held for extending geographical indications to products
other than wines and spirits which are important to many countries. There
should also be no misappropriation of the biological and genetic resources
and traditional knowledge of the developing countries. Availability and
affordability of essential medicines is a universal human right. WTO should
not deny that right. This Conference must send out a clear message to the
world that nothing in the TRIPS Agreement shall prevent governments from
taking measures to protect public health. Accordingly, the TRIPS Agreement
must be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members'
right to protect public health and ensure access to medicines for all.
In conclusion, we are of the view that the issues which are not yet ripe
must remain with the working groups for further study. India, including
many other developing countries, are not ready to accept a new set of onerous
commitments. The road map already charted by the Uruguay Round Agreements
should be the future work programme and this crucial Ministerial Conference
should provide negotiating mandate for resolving outstanding implementation
issues and clear guidance on mandated negotiations and reviews. WTO is
for multilateral trading system only. It should not encompass the responsibility
for rule making of non-trade-related subjects. Globalization and liberalization
have to be addressed at various fora and not in WTO alone. WTO is not a
global government and should not attempt to appropriate to itself what
legitimately falls in the domain of national governments and Parliaments.
WTO's core competence is in international trade and we would strongly urge
that it stays that way. Then only we can save and strengthen the multilateral
trading system. Mr Chairman, I am confident that you in your capacity as
the Chairman of this Ministerial Conference is fully aware of the expectation,
aspirations and concerns of developing countries on all the issues. I am
absolutely sure that your experience, wisdom and commitment will enable
all of us to find collective solutions to difficult issues in such a way
that the final declaration really keeps the needs and interests of developing
countries as the central theme of all future WTO activities. |
|