The sixth Ministerial conference of the WTO ended on Sunday with the
adoption of a Ministerial Declaration in a carefully choreographed
closing session designed in a way to prevent delegations from speaking
or taking an active role in decision-making.
Indeed, the choreography had gone on the whole week, and remarkable as it
may seem, the closing session was the only official meeting of the whole
Conference, except for the opening ceremony on 13 December.
The Director-General Pascal Lamy was later to brief journalists that over
the week, 450 meetings were organized, six major gatherings and over
200 consultations by facilitators.
Some were heads of delegation meetings, others consultations and plenary
sessions on the various issues, yet others were “Green Room” exclusive
meetings to which a select few were invited.
Yet, there will be no records or minutes of these meetings or of the
negotiations. Who said what, indeed which countries were invited or
were present, will not be known or at least will not be made public. For
all intents and purposes these were “non meetings.” The WTO spokesman
referred to the Green Room meetings in terms of: "If the Green Room
does exist, and if there was a meeting.....“Yet, the leaders of the conference kept congratulating themselves for the”transparent, inclusive and bottom-up" process.
The closing session was an example of the process. But more than the other
meetings, nothing could be left to chance. After all, it was the only
official meeting, and nothing should go wrong, as the only record of the
Conference will be what is said here.
Chairs were arranged theatre-style, with no tables in front of delegates or
microphones or the name card of the countries. There were no standing
microphones either in the aisles. A more participation-unfriendly
arrangement would be hard to imagine. One could not help make a mental
comparison with formal sessions of UN conferences, or even of the closing
ceremony in Doha (where delegations were seated behind tables, name
cards and microphones and where many members and regional
groupings spoke).
At the Hong Kong closing session, any delegation wanting to speak would find
it very difficult, if not near impossible, to make an intervention,
especially since the Chair, John Tsang, Hong Kong’s Commerce Secretary,
was often not even looking at delegates before proclaiming "It is so
decided"
and banging the gavel after reading out decisions on various items.
In this intimidating scenario, a strange and significant event took place.
The Chair introduced the most-important subject of the Ministerial
Declaration and proceeded to announce some changes to the draft
on cotton and annex F on LDCs.
He proposed that the Declaration be adopted, and quickly proclaimed
“It is so decided”, and pounded the gavel, before anyone could have the
chance to say anything, thus having formally steered the adoption of the
Ministerial Declaration.
He then stated that the statements expressing reservations on the text at
the Heads of Delegation meeting (just prior to the closing session) are also
“duly noted.” By that time, most people in the hall knew that in that HOD
meeting, a few countries had made reservations on parts of the draft
Declaration, and there was some uncertainty how this would be dealt with.
The Chair then proceeded to the next item, proposing that the conference
take note of reports transmitted by various WTO bodies. At that point,
a woman quickly went up to the stage, went up to Tsang, interrupting him,
and spoke to him.
The woman was Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, Mari Pili
Hernandez. She insisted that the Venezuelan and Cuban delegations be given
the right to make their reservations public in the meeting.
The Chair, after some resistance, finally allowed them to speak. On the
floor, a microphone materialized; it must have been arranged before by
those who intended to make an intervention despite the conditions. A
representative of Cuba said his delegation intended to make a statement
of reservation at the plenary, but as it might not be the best time to do
so, he would hand in the full statement to the Secretariat so that Cuba’s
views can be reflected in the records. The statement would contain
specific reservations that Cuba had on the Declaration.
The microphone was then quickly passed to a delegate from Venezuela. "We too
wish to reiterate our reservations expressed at the heads of delegation
meeting," he said, mentioning the services and NAMA parts of the text as
the areas in which Venezuela had reservations. "We would be grateful if they
are duly reflected."
This event, unusual for the WTO, became the highlight of an otherwise quick
and businesslike session. It was the first time that members had registered
reservations to the text at the closing of a Ministerial.
The meeting then proceeded, with the gavel being pounded when a few other
decisions were taken. There was no announcement on the “road map” - what
would happen after Hong Kong. This was strange, since deciding on a road map
for future work was one of the well-publicised three aims of the Conference,
the other two being stock-taking and negotiations.
Later, at a press conference, Tsang said that there is a new deadline of 30
April 2006 to attain the full modalities in agriculture and NAMA. [This
deadline is also stated in the Declaration in paras 10 and 23.]
There was no discussion or information how the decision on the full
modalities will be taken. There was silence in particular on a question that
was often speculated on at Hong Kong - whether there would be another
Ministerial conference to finalise and adopt the crucial decisions on the
modalities, and if so when and where.
Despite attempts to make the Hong Kong meeting a “success”, there was no
hiding that it had failed to achieve the target of “full modalities.” The
recalibration of ambitions for this meeting had threatened to make it a "non
event.“Tsang told the delegates that”success is where no one is happy and
given the grumbles heard at the last HOD meeting, this conference is very
successful."
Lamy in his speech said the meeting started with 55% of the Round completed,
and “we leave with 60% completed.” There was, he said, new political energy
which is needed to finish the Round.
Tsang’s reference to “grumbles” at the HOD meeting was interesting. For
much of the last 24 hours, it was “touch and go” whether there would be an
agreed text at all. The previous day (17 December), there had been more
than a few grumbles when the first revised Hong Kong draft appeared.
The 17 December text contained many problems which induced a great deal of
frustration for delegations from developing countries. These related to LDC
duty and quota free market access (no clear commitment on binding, the
abandonment of access for all products), agricultural export subsidies (no
agreement on the end date), a weak commitment on cotton (no progress on
the most important issue of domestic subsidy) and most of all, the text on
services (with the retention of almost all the controversial points on
qualitative benchmarks, plurilateral, modal and sectoral negotiations).
At a HOD meeting on 17 December night, many developing countries expressed
many concerns and pointed out many shortcomings in the text. They felt that
there was too little development in the text and too little real SDT
elements. Some felt that development only appeared as a token, as an
attempt to disguise the offensive demands of the rich countries, and disarm
them so that they could accept the parts of the text that were problematic
to them.
On agriculture, almost all speakers (from developing and developed
countries) stressed the need for an end-date for export subsidies, many said
this should be 2010. Many developing countries (including Africa) said
the SDT provisions are not clear enough .
On NAMA, many developing countries (Africa, in particular) said there was
too little development in the section. The ACP Group disagreed with the
mention of Swiss formula in para 14 and wanted that paragraph bracketed.
On the para 8 flexibilities, many developing countries (such as Brazil,
India, and Africa) wanted more clarity in the text that these must stand
alone and not be a trade-off with the formula. Africa also demanded that
para 6 (of NAMA July framework) countries should be exempt from
tariff reductions.
On services, some developing countries felt that there was too little
development in the text and that the annex was still a threat to the
national objectives of developing countries. Some countries also rejected
the text because of the way it had come into existence and brought to
Hong Kong. Several developing countries said (some strongly) that the
text must still be improved and that the brackets in the paragraph on
services should be maintained.
A whole-night Green Room meeting (Saturday night/Sunday morning) was not
conclusive, with a reported exchange when EU Trade Commissioner Peter
Mandelson said he had no mandate to give a better offer and Brazilian
Minister Celso Amorim angrily replying that everyone had then been wasting
their time.
Just as the Green Room meeting was ending on Sunday morning, Mandelson
finally said the EU could agree to an end-date of 2013. This was not the
2010 that Brazil and others wanted, but they took up the offer.
A new revised draft was issued on early afternoon Sunday. Its main new
features was an end-date of 2006 for agricultural export subsidies,
additions to
NAMA, and filling in of dates and percentages in annex F on LDCs. There
was no significant change in the services annex.
A key question in the remaining few hours before the closing was whether the
developing countries could accept the draft without changes, in particular
the annex on services.
Besides the major developed countries, which wanted Annex C untouched, India
(and a few other major developing countries) lobbied those developing
countries that had objections to several points in Annex C to refrain from
“rocking the boat” and to agree to adoption of the draft Declaration as a
whole.
They tried to persuade the ACP Group and the African Group that
participation in the plurilateral negotiations mentioned in Annex C were
voluntary in nature, and not mandatory. Several experts had earlier pointed
out that despite the changes (in para 7b), participation of countries
requested to take part would be mandatory.
At the HOD meeting on the afternoon of 18 December, many of the delegations
having objections to Annex C or its components toned down their criticism or
refrained from making any. Some continued to express their criticism, but
said they could go along with the text. But Cuba said it rejected Annex C
and had reservations on the NAMA section. Venezuela also voiced
strong reservations on both services and NAMA.
At this last HOD, both Brazil and India were upbeat on the new draft and
indicated their support. At a press briefing before the closing session,
Brazil and India also expressed their support, and that of the G20 for the
Declaration.
Indian Commerce Minister Kamal Nath even revealed that he had talked to
members of the G90 and dispelled their misconceptions and concerns over the
services text, and that they would now agree to its adoption.
By the time the HOD ended, the corridor talk was that Cuba and Venezuela
still had reservations and might be planning to make it known at the closing
session.
The seating arrangements and lack of microphones were part of the props that
made that seem improbable, if not impossible. Despite the choreography, the
two delegations succeeded in making their point heard, and this will be on
record. It took a Vice Minister prepared to jump on the stage to get the
attention of the Chair and to insist that her delegation be allowed to
speak, to make that happen.