Examination of witnesses (Questions 358
- 379)
TUESDAY 23 MAY
THE RT
HON CLARE
SHORT and MR
JOHN ROBERTS
Chairman
358. Can I welcome you once more, Secretary
of State, to our Committee. We are at the end of an exhaustive
inquiry into the WTO of which this is the last evidence session
we are taking, so we are very anxious to hear your views and also
that you bring us up to date with the current events because things
have moved on since Seattle, as you know. Can I also welcome Mr
Roberts who, I understand, is acting as the Head of the Economic
Trade Department. Is that what you call it? Perhaps you can tell
us.
(Mr Roberts) The International Economic Policy Department.
(Clare Short) And he has a lot of detailed expertise
on trade. He is a considerable resource.
359. I understand that you would like to make
a brief opening statement, Secretary of State.
(Clare Short) Thank you, just very brief. I think
it is my very strong view that the World Trade Organisation is
the best possible chance developing countries have and the global
system has of establishing equitable rules of trade and creating
conditions where the poorer countries can get more benefits from
international trade. It is remarkable what a bad press it has
had and the sort of atmospherics out of Seattle in that it has
taken over from the IMF as the organisation everyone concerned
with development wants to hate. In fact, as you all know, it is
only five years old, considerably more democratic than the old
GATT negotiations in that countries join by choice, it makes its
decisions by consensus, it is a rules-based organisation and,
therefore, it does not matter if you are big or little, you are
all subject to the same rules and there are arbitration procedures
available for you. That is a very considerable advance on the
arrangements that there were under GATT and again, as you all
know, very large numbers of developing countries, three-quarters
of the membership and more to come, have chosen individually to
join. Now, all that said, I think there are problems in the adjustment
of its procedures to the new more democratic arrangements. The
GATT used to be an organisation dominated by a few rich trading
countries or blocs and now it has to adjust its procedures to
the fact that it is much more a membership-based, rules-based
organisation and we saw all sorts of glitches in the procedures
at Seattle, but there we are. I think anyone concerned with development
or the interests of developing countries or the need to improve
their prospects for growing their economy through increased trading
opportunities and attracting inward investment should firmly support
the existence of the World Trade Organisation and the continuance
of its work and authority and support a new trade Round. The problem
we have there is that trade is becoming more and more complicated
and lots of developing countries in whose objective interest I
am convinced a comprehensive Round is—sorry about the construction
of that sentence—are just really worried by the complexity
of the issues they have to negotiate. We have been trying, as
you know, to do a lot of capacity-building and encourage more
capacity-building and have done a lot, and there is a lot more
to do, but my own strong argument is that delay deprives developing
countries of trading opportunities and opportunities for economic
growth, that because people lack expertise, they quite reasonably
say, "Let's go more slowly", but the world economy is
not going more slowly and if things do not change to improve their
opportunities, they are missing out and the poor and their children
will only be the age they are once and either be in school or
not be in school or be well nourished or not be well nourished.
The final point I wish to make is that I thought that the suggestion
Alec Erwin made at Seattle, and I do not know if he repeated it
when he appeared before you, but he has done a fantastically constructive
job in trying to build an alliance of developing countries to
influence the Round and take it forward and I have been very impressed
indeed by his performance, but he has suggested that the Round
should start with the built-in agenda and then have some pauses
for capacity-building for negotiators before moving on to some
of the really complicated questions like competition policy and
investment, and I still think that is a really constructive and
sensible proposal. The World Trade Organisation is a precious
development instrument almost and those who are attacking it are,
I am afraid, in the words of that Malaysian Minister at Davos,
"organisations that claim to be in favour of development
who are trying to save the developing world from development".
Chairman: Well, Secretary of State, we
saw Alec Erwin last week, as you know, and he is very much in
line with all that you have said to us this morning, that the
comprehensive Round is very important for the developing countries,
and he sees it from the point of view that you have just expressed
to us. He did in fact say, "If the WTO goes down, we, the
developing countries, go down with it", and so he is clearly
right in line with what you are saying and he illustrated that.
Mr Rowe
360. He also said, "The commitment to the
WTO by the developing countries is massive. The protest groups
say that it is working against us, and of course there are aspects
that are working against us, but we will negotiate that. We do
not need anyone else to negotiate that for us; we will negotiate
that". I just wondered—and we asked Sir John Vereker
the same question in a way—how do you see the accountability
of NGOs being properly exposed and explored because at the present
moment somebody who set up an NGO yesterday, if they have got
funds or if they have got three or four people good at publicity,
can actually have a voice on the world stage which carries a totally
spurious credibility? I just wondered if you had any views about
how we can actually address this question of to whom are NGOs
accountable, how is that accountability to be expressed and how
does it inter-relate with the responsibility they claim they have
for a constituency which they have not been elected to represent?
(Clare Short) I think this is a very important question
and it is causing increasing tension. The governments of developing
countries are becoming more and more exasperated that NGOs that
claim to be concerned about development speak so often in their
name and often make arguments with which they do not agree. On
the arguments of making the WTO more transparent, developing countries
by and large are not in favour of opening up to NGOs because they
think their voices will be squashed by these forces. I think they
have got a real problem in that the world is changing under our
feet, as we know, and a lot of well-meaning NGOs just cannot command
the detail of what is happening to international trade and investment
and so on and are adopting a posture of, "This is all multinational
capital. It is all exploitative", and I call it the "Keep
your dirty capital out of Africa" sentiment. A lot of it
is well meant, but it is sort of this romantic idea of the noble
poverty of the rural poor of Africa and South Asia living at peace
with nature and their environment and spiritually at one. There
are a lot of people, really good people, who believe in these
sentiments and it is very dangerous. A lot of them are good, well-meaning
people and I think what we have to do, committees like this, individuals
like me, is to try to make the arguments, take it on, try to nurture
our relationships with the responsible NGOs and try to share the
information and the thinking and encourage them to take on the
bigger and more responsible agenda, but in the end to whom are
they accountable? Nobody. Those who give the money of course,
but they are not and far too often we slip from talking about
civil society to meaning development NGOs, and the World Bank's
survey, which we helped to fund, of the opinions of very poor
people across the world showed that they did not trust their governments,
they did not trust politicians, they did not see much of NGOs,
and the people they trusted most were their mosques and their
churches. We need an openness to civil society, but we need to
really mean civil society and the people that are close to the
poor of the world, not self-appointed groupings who claim to speak
on their behalf, and we have got a very serious problem here.
My final point is that the world turned to protectionism once
before in the 1930s and I think it would be very complacent to
assume that we are going to go forward with a stronger WTO and
fairer and fairer rules. I hope we can achieve that and I think
it is the way we should go and I think it is achievable, but there
are forces out there in all our countries that are leaning in
another direction and we could go backwards to more protectionism,
and that is the big blocs and the big countries looking after
their own interests, and that we know from what happened in the
1930s could be a very dangerous development.
361. Alec Erwin said, did he not, that some
of the protesters exhibit what, from our perspective, will end
up as being a straight protectionist position, so whatever they
may dress that up as, it does not take away from the fact that
this is an attempt to protect their lifestyle or their economy;
this is perfectly legitimate. That just sums it up.
(Clare Short) For me, the point is young people in
Seattle wearing Nike trainers with mobile phones who organise
their demonstrations on the Internet and fly in, living the comfortable
life of citizens of the kind of countries we live in with access
to modern technology and all the fruits of multinational capital
which organises the use of that technology for us, trying to protect
the poor of the world from many of the fruits of it.
Chairman: I think your answer is, Secretary
of State, it is a problem, but we do not know quite how to deal
with it.
Ms King
362. I am very interested in what you just said
really. Mr Erwin also said, "I think a great deal of attention
has to be paid to how you deal with the legitimate concerns of
your own civil society", and I think maybe that is where
we need to differentiate between NGOs and the home-grown indigenous
NGO networks, the role of DFID in civil society and capacity-building
there, and the good NGOs operating out of Britain, Europe, et
cetera, who see themselves as pure facilitators to that process,
not necessarily speaking on behalf of or doing pure advocacy on
behalf of, but enabling both governments and civil society in
developing countries to have a role and have a voice in anything
like the WTO. I think there are two very distinct types of NGO
operating there, one which claims to speak on behalf of people
in effect and one which sees itself as actually working in partnership
with governments and civil society in countries. I do not know
whether you agree with that or not.
(Clare Short) I do agree with that and I repeat that
there are lots of people of extremely good intent working in and
supporting development NGOs and there is a move now to try and
facilitate the building of the voices of the people themselves
rather than speak on their behalf. However, nonetheless, to run
an NGO you need a profile and you need to raise funds and the
way you get your name in the media is to attack things. Certainly
in the preparation for Seattle, as we became more and more engaged
and more and more worried about what was going to happen and invited
in British development NGOs and talked about what we were doing,
we tried to peel them off—this is to put it crudely—an
alliance that was already there, driven more by the environmental
NGOs which was very hostile, there was some adjustment and some
movement, so there are lots of good people, but fashions run,
the media runs, all are very powerful and in the end to be a successful
NGO, you have got to have your name in the papers and that pulls
in another direction.
Chairman
363. In the initial memorandum that the Department
submitted to us, it mentions the apprehensions which many developing
countries feel about the new Round of trade negotiations. Mike
Moore, the Director of the WTO, speaking at the end of the May
meeting of the General Council, unveiled a number of "confidence-building
measures" designed to raise the confidence of developing
countries in the multilateral trading system. These proposals
included an offer of tariff and quota-free access for "essentially
all products", a series of special sessions of the General
Council on implementation issues, a commitment to give "positive
consideration" to individual requests to roll over implementation
deadlines, and a commitment for increased technical assistance.
Are any of these proposals new and do you feel that this package
will be sufficient to build the confidence of developing countries?
Could it not be argued that this package, excluding, as it does,
sensitive agricultural goods, could actually undermine confidence
in the WTO as regards its commitment to least developed countries?
What is being excluded by the "essentially all" caveat?
(Clare Short) I think the agreement to give better
trade access to least developed countries, which was a call originally
made by Mr Ruggiero, the response has been disappointing in that
there have been exclusions by country after country or blocs,
the Japanese, American and of course the EU with their tantalising
"essentially all", which means the offer is less generous
than we would have hoped and needs continual working, and we need
in the EU to get on with defining what we mean by "essentially
all" because there are deep protectionist policies within
the EU and clearly there will be a fight about that, so although
the EU is committed to implementing this anyway, still determining
exactly what is included is an important piece of work which has
not yet been undertaken. John, do you have anything to add to
that?
(Mr Roberts) Yes, Secretary of State. Pascal Lamy,
the Commissioner for Trade, briefed the European Parliament last
week on this. He had been in consultation with his colleague,
Franz Fischler, the Commissioner for Agriculture, and what he
is reported as saying is that he wanted to make progress in the
agricultural field and opening the EU market to imports in the
least developed, and that the hard core of difficult products
consisted of beef, rice and sugar.
364. I thought sugar might be amongst them.
(Clare Short) There are real problems because of the
Lome and access which is guaranteed over time will clearly be
phased out, so the EU has got some genuine problems given its
other commitments on the commodity protocols, but Lamy has grasped
this agenda and I believe it has become clearer and clearer, the
need for developing countries to make gains from the Round, but
we will have to get agreement from all the Member States and that
will not be a simple process and it is something that the Committee
might want to keep an eye on. The Bangladeshi Minister or representative
in Geneva, the Chair for the least developed group, did express
some disappointment about the package on access for the least
developed countries, but I think the agreement that was reached
to review implementation of Uruguay and to look genuinely at countries
that have not been able to implement all the undertakings they
have made, and really have not and need more help and need more
time, I think that has brought a lot of relief to developing countries
who just took on more than they knew they were taking on and just
have not had the capacity to implement it and were worried that
deadlines were approaching and they could then be open to penalty.
So I think that agreement in Geneva to review implementation has
been very welcome and helped the atmospherics that that was part
of a package that would really assist developing countries. I
think developing countries are keen on more transparency internally.
Everyone understands that if you are going to have negotiations
and a final deal, you cannot have all 136 countries at the table,
but you have got to have representatives of different groups that
report back to their groups so that you have got a proper process
and everyone is engaged, and I think there is more and more consensus
on that and that is the way that will go. Then, finally, developing
countries are not at all keen on what is called external transparency
because they think it is going to go back to NGOs speaking on
their behalf. Obviously we all want things to be published and
just more open and scrutinised, but there is a reluctance amongst
developing countries because they fear that their voices are going
to be squashed by those other voices about which we talked. Have
I missed anything out?
(Mr Roberts) The special review mechanism which was
agreed by the General Council is regarded as very important. It
was mooted at the time of Seattle, but not agreed then and this
will indeed provide an ongoing mechanism means for—
(Clare Short) That is the work on implementation,
which I think has meant that that is the most important gain developing
countries have made and that means they are less discontented
than you might otherwise expect because they see that as extremely
important, and a bit of good faith for their real problems.
365. So you do see these measures as building
confidence in the developing countries in WTO, do you?
(Clare Short) I think, firstly, I agree very much
with Alec Erwin, that developing countries do believe in the WTO
and that is why they joined it. In Bangkok, at the UNCTAD meeting
in Bangkok, it was very clear that developing countries understand
that the smaller, weaker economies are going to get justice out
of a membership organisation with rules and if that does not survive,
then the big countries and the big economies will bully everyone
else and that clearly must be less good for developing countries,
but I think they are slightly overwhelmed by just the pure technical
detail and the difficulty of negotiating and complying, but I
think in the present atmospherics, the agreement to review implementation
is very, very important to developing countries and has made them
feel better.
366. When do you see these discussions really
getting down to business and the implementation taking place?
(Clare Short) I think what we need is a bit of a kind
of case-by-case look at countries that generally have not been
able to implement commitments they undertook in Uruguay, looking
at their difficulties, looking at the technical assistance they
need to be able to do so and giving them realistic timescales,
so I think we need a kind of fair objective look mechanism, which
does expect everyone to comply, but is realistic about the capacity
of countries to comply and the help they need in order to get
there, and I hope we will get to that sort of process quite soon.
(Mr Roberts) We are making a start with TRIMs which
are the General Council's specific decision to consider this sensitively
and to defer any action.
367. When will you begin TRIMs?
(Mr Roberts) I do not know the exact timetable for
consideration of this, but the Council decided that implementation
of TRIMs would be a high priority for consideration.
(Clare Short) But I think again that should be driven
forward and it is urgent because, otherwise, dates where countries
are supposed to complete their compliance with Uruguay will kick
in and, without some exceptions being made, they become liable
to sanctions, so it has got its own timetable and it has to be
driven forward, otherwise we get all those problems and that would
really damage the WTO and any prospects of another Round.
Mr Rowe
368. I wonder if we could be reminded of the
scale of this so-called concession to the LDCs in relation to
the size of the EU economy. We have heard some absolutely minute
figures being used.
(Clare Short) Yes, the least developed countries make
up 0.4 per cent of world trade—tiny, tiny, tiny amounts.
These are the poorest countries in the world. You would think
that everyone could just open up their economies and help them
to trade and then of course there would be more attractive destinations
for investment and that would help them grow their economies.
Surely that is both right morally and in all our interests to
get a more stable world and more trade and so on, but look at
the process then. Country by country, powerful, wealthy economies
start paring away some of the access—it is very disappointing—so
you see the difference between the rhetoric on liberalisation
and trade, especially from the big economies, and then in practice
when you get down to some of the detail, but that is the reality
that we are working with.
Chairman
369. When do you think the Ruggiero proposals
are actually going to be implemented?
(Clare Short) Well, the commitment that has now been
made by the US, Japan, the Quad, and of course countries like
Switzerland and Korea and Poland have said they will do it too,
I presume will be implemented quite soon, but they do not allow
much more access than countries have at the moment. In terms of
the EU, we have already discussed that. It is committed to implementing
anyway regardless of what happens during the WTO by 2005, but
starting the process in the year 2000 and we need to move the
EU on and get down to the detail on what is "essentially
all" and start the process, and I think we all need to press
the EU much more firmly.
370. And that is rice, beef and sugar?
(Clare Short) Well, Commissioner Lamy has said that
those are the obvious exceptions. That is not the same as getting
all the Member States to agree and we must as a Government, we
must all, and it would also be good to have the Committee's help
to press that agenda forward and get the EU to agree to start
the process.
Ms King
371. You mentioned the Head of the Bangladeshi
mission to the WTO in Geneva, Abdul Mannan, who I think has made
an impressive contribution to this debate. When we met him in
Geneva, he cited many of the failures that the WTO had had, but
he also said that, in his view, "If there is a lack of legitimacy,
then we, the developing countries, have contributed to it as much
as anyone else". Do you think there is any way or how do
you think the developing countries could improve their own performance?
(Clare Short) I think what we are seeing is a process
of historical change and many developing countries, after their
independence, were working with a model of a very powerful state
driving economic development, with the support of development
thinking in industrialised countries that did look to a closed
economy with quite a lot of protection and the idea that you build
up your infant industries behind protectionist barriers. That
has proved to be, just by pure economic history, a desperately
flawed model which has led in many countries to the population
growing faster than the economy and, therefore, the invincible
growth of poverty and the crumbling of public services. I think
we are all, whatever our original point in the political spectrum,
having to adjust our mind-set to the changes that are taking place
in the world and that process is going on in developing countries
amongst their politicians, their technical people in their trade
ministries and their public opinion, so there is that general
problem that we all have and share and we need to move forward
the world's mind as to how we manage this globalising era more
beneficially and overcome some of the old stereotypes, and that
is part of the problem. Some of the rhetoric from developing countries
in Geneva has been, "Please don't do this to me" rather
than the positive agenda that developing countries need to agree
about what they want, they take into the next Round and of course
if they agree on it, they will get it, which is very much the
Alec Erwin approach and is much more likely to produce real fruits
for developing countries, and then on top of that there are real
problems. A country like Bangladesh, it might be a very poor country,
but it is a big country and it can support its mission in Geneva
much more than some of the very small, poor African countries
which are just tinier countries with much smaller government machines
and people with very little back-up, and that is a problem that
we have got to sort in our arrangements, collective secretarial
help, and I do hope our forthcoming White Paper on globalisation
and development will help with some of this. We have got to move
the mind-set of the world on in order to start to have a serious
discussion about how we manage globalisation in a way which will
be equitable and stable and just for developing countries, and
I think all of our countries have got this problem and all our
public opinions.
Chairman: I think I will ask Nigel Jones
to ask the next questions on the outcome of the WTO Council, some
of which have been dealt with.
Mr Jones
372. We have had two meetings of the General
Council this year, on the 8th February and the 3rd May. How satisfied
are you with the outcome and progress made concerning measures
in favour of the developing countries because progress does seem
to have been painfully slow?
(Clare Short) We have discussed it. I think the mini-package
on implementation is good, as we said, and now we need to get
on with it, and that won a lot of goodwill. The market access
for least developed countries is disappointing. We need to keep
pushing and we need to push the EU to do more than the minimum,
and that is our own responsibility. I think personally that the
views of developing countries to the package and post the Bangkok
UNCTAD are very positive. I know that Alec Erwin thinks that what
is going on in Geneva is getting bogged down—I saw him when
I was in South Africa just recently—but those are not the
reports that I get back, so it could be a lot better, but the
atmospherics are quite good and the implementation commitment
is very important.
Mr Robathan
373. I would like to ask about changes to the
negotiating position of the EU in the light of events in Seattle
and subsequently. Firstly, what aspects do you think should be
changed, if any, and, in particular, are you happy with the current
EU negotiating position on agriculture? You will know that agriculture
is the one which is brought up the whole time by developing countries,
and I think quite rightly. Alec Erwin, if I might quote what he
said last week, said, "...the European Union has to change
its agricultural policy...this is a matter of massive concern
to developing countries. It is an obstacle to growth for the developing
world".
(Clare Short) We worked quite hard on getting an EU
negotiating position that we as a Government supported and we
had a big struggle on trade and labour, as we know, when we got
an outcome that we thought we could live with, and we also very
much wanted the EU support for the comprehensive Round both because
we believed that progress on competition and investment policy
would be beneficial to the developing countries and because we
need a broad Round to get a deal so that all parties are getting
something, so that was a satisfactory part of the EU negotiating
mandate. On agriculture, as you know, the EU has difficulties
on this. It is the position of the UK that we want major reform
and we welcome the fact that the EU is extending its membership
and that the piece clause is going to become exhausted on agricultural
protection under Uruguay in 2003, so there has to be progress.
Also, it is widely known that we as a country want to go further
than we can get the other Member States to agree on agriculture,
but we think there are historical forces at work that will drive
major agricultural reform and the EU will not be able to afford
the level of agricultural subsidy as it widens its membership;
the finances just do not add up. Also we have got the WTO as another
ally in getting sensible agricultural reform. So it is the most
difficult area, there is no doubt, but we saw in Seattle when
some negotiation was going on some flexibility, and of course
there are politics within the politics in the WTO and some of
the other big economic blocs that did not want a more comprehensive
Round were saying, "Ah, the reason the EU wants to include
investment and competition is anything but agriculture",
whereas we believe there should be a comprehensive Round, agriculture
must be included and it is the most difficult for the EU, as we
well know as a country, and we want the EU to go as far as it
can possibly be pushed to go. I believe with Alec Erwin that this
is important for developing countries, although developing countries
have adjusted to the existing distortions in agricultural trade
in the world, so as barriers come down to agricultural trade,
there will be winners and losers amongst developing countries,
so developing countries have got into the niches of existing arrangements.
Obviously what developing countries need to do is do more processing
of their food in order to get more value added in their imports
and that is where Africa needs to move, and then I think as food
is more processed, it hits more tariff barriers and that is a
very important issue for developing countries. However, let me
just finally add that all the research evidence is clear that
a reduction in tariffs on manufacturing would also be highly beneficial
to developing countries, so yes, agriculture, but manufacturing
is important to them too and in south-south trade in manufacturing,
there are very high tariffs and bringing them down would bring
economic growth to developing countries.
374. I wish I shared your confidence that enlargement
of the EU must inevitably lead to a proper reform of the agricultural
policy, but I do not want to get too bogged down too far in that,
but—
(Clare Short) It is just the finances, it is a very
optimistic thing. Look at these countries with big agricultural
sectors, Poland, Hungary and so on; if they are all going to have
a Common Agricultural Policy and all be subsidised, the finances
just will not add up, so that is going to drive change in a way
that we as a country think is highly beneficial for the agricultural
reform we want anyway.
Chairman: And the effect on world commodity
prices would be drastic for the developing world, would it not,
with huge exports of subsidised sugar, wheat, barley, et cetera?
Mr Robathan
375. I think we come at this from the same way,
but I am somewhat less sanguine about the changes made—
(Clare Short) Let me agree that the barriers to reform
are huge, but I think there are objective forces coming out of
the bottle that are going to drive reform. That is the optimistic
scenario.
376. You have mentioned the UK getting the EU
to do more than the minimum. How possible do you think realistically
it is for the UK to get the EU to do more than the minimum and
is not the trade agreement between the EU and South Africa rather
a bad precedent for this?
(Clare Short) Yes, I think the trade agreement with
South Africa shows all the sort of begrudging, protectionist interests
that are alive and working in the EU, so countries trying to prevent
the import of fruit that is produced at a different time of year
than their own fruit, it is absolutely contrary to any opportunities
for enlarged agriculture, and it has been a very painful process.
I think it demonstrates very powerfully the value of multilateral
trade negotiations because if it is country by country and individual
developing country against a very wealthy bloc, it is a supplicant,
whereas if you put all the developing countries together and wealthy
countries will not change, they are in a much more powerful position
to get some gains for developing countries out of the agreement
and I think that might be one of the reasons why Alec Erwin is
so clear about the value of multilateral trade negotiations. How
can we get the EU to do more than the minimum? The EU is committed
(and was it part of the Lome mandate or was that agreed beforehand?)
to zero-tariff access on essentially all products for the least
developed countries whether anyone else moves or not and was committed,
quite apart from the confidence-building measures, in the WTO
and, as I said earlier, we are supposed to start phasing it in
by the end of this year and it is supposed to be completed by
2005, and we should drive that and get on with it, put a lot of
pressure on the EU to be generous and get on with it quickly.
I think the other issue is the phasing out of the multi-fibre
agreements quite rapidly, and that is coming to the table quite
quickly. It is very important to developing countries and the
EU is about to adopt a position. Is that right?
(Mr Roberts) The next stage, the third stage of removing
textile and clothing products from the quota, putting them into
the general WTO regime, is scheduled for the 1st January 2002
and the European Union must now get its act together to decide
what it is going to take out of quota and put into the WTO regime
for that deadline of 1st January 2002.
(Clare Short) It is an issue the Committee might want
to keep an eye on because the EU has got to start preparing its
position now.
Chairman
377. Is there a long list of these products?
(Mr Roberts) Yes, there is, and I forget how many
groups of products and the position has been hitherto that those
groups of products which, on the whole, have not been very helpful
to developing countries have been taken out of quota and that
leaves groups of products which are of keen interest to developing
countries, trousers, shirts, blouses and so forth, which are still
subject to quota.
378. Do you think, Secretary of State, that
we could have a list of those that have got to be taken out of
quota by 2002? I think it would be very useful to the Committee.
(Clare Short) It is a very important issue.
Chairman: I think it would be useful
to have it if we could.[1]
Ms King
379. The Brazilian Ambassador to the WTO has
suggested that a new Round is in effect under way, given the fact
that there are, firstly, negotiations going on with regard to
agriculture and services and, secondly, the whole range of issues
that are being discussed within the Implementation Group. If that
is the case, what would you say are the prospects now for a broad
Round going ahead?
(Clare Short) Under the Uruguay Round, there was agreement
to the built-in agenda, as it is called, to come back to agriculture
and services, so that is what is going on; it was bound under
Uruguay and those negotiations have started. Then, as we have
said earlier, there has been this agreement to review the implementation
of Uruguay and have more flexibility for countries that have not
been able to implement all their commitments, so that is presumably
the point that the Brazilian Ambassador is making and that is
good and the work should go on. However, I am convinced myself
that we will not get major gains, particularly on something like
agriculture, without the more comprehensive Round so that all
blocs are making gains and, therefore, they will make concessions,
so that work should go on, but I would not be optimistic on a
very difficult issue like agriculture taken alone and that is
not part of a comprehensive Round. But I do hope that we will
get agreement to get on with the Round and broaden it in order
to get the conditions for political agreement.
1 See Evidence pp. 169-172. Back
|
