Memorandum submitted by Linda Kaucher,
Member of the Economic Justice Committee of the Women's International
League for Peace and Freedom, and an executive member of WILPF
UK
These are comments, with background information,
on the reports by the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry
and for International Development respectively, on the Cancún
Ministerial, to the International Development Committee, 16 October
2003.
UK FAILURE TO
INFLUENCE EC REVERSAL
ON INVESTMENT
AGREEMENT MEANS
"GO -AHEAD"
In her presentation to the Committee Secretary
of State Hewitt emphasised that from immediately prior to Cancún
the UK did not support the inclusion of an investment agreement
in the EU's demands. This was an apparent shift in the UK position,
resulting from the many arguments put forward in this country
by NGO's and others, and indeed by your own Committee.
However, the actual EC position did not change
until very late in the negotiations.
The UK Government had been the initial main
proponent of an investment agreement. If, despite the domestic
impression of a shift, it then failed to exert any influence to
change the EC position on an investment agreement (and there was
no evidence that this occurred), then it is reasonable to assume
that the thrust of UK influence within the EC that prevailed was,
in fact, as before—that of supporting an investment agreement,
while appearing to bow to the wishes of the UK public. This appears
less than honest then on the part of the UK Government, in regard
to its actual position.
(A similar phenomenon occurred with the GATS
requests on water services, after the 2002 mass trade justice
lobby of parliament. The UK Government, on behalf of UK water
companies, had been a main proponent of GATS requests to developing
countries on water services. When the UK public objected strongly,
the UK Government appeared to withdraw from the request—while,
due to the earlier work of the UK, the EC was continuing to take
the request forward.)
INVESTMENT AND
HUMAN RIGHTS
IGNORED
One aspect of the civil society lobbying of
the UK Government about investment which led to the Government's
eventual and apparent change of position, was the citing, in a
Trade Policy Consultative Forum, of the report made to the Sub
Commission for the Protection of Human Rights in July 2003, by
the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello.
(The UNHCHR was tragically killed in a bomb explosion in Baghdad
a month after delivering this report). The report refers to the
threat to Economic, Social and Cultural Human Rights posed by
an investment agreement.
Despite the fact that 40 or so government department
staff were preparing to go to Cancún at that stage, at
public expense, to pursue an investment agreement, none of the
Government Department representatives in the TPCF had read the
UNHCHR report. It seems that DTI was unaware of the report because,
as the DTI Chair of the TPCF stated, "the DTI has never had
anyone looking at Human Rights".
When a Government Department's work has such
a massive effect on people around the world, this appears to be
a very significant oversight.
MINISTERS' CLAIMS
ON "POVERTY",
"DEVELOPMENT ROUND",
"TRADE CAPACITY
BUILDING", "COUNTRY-OWNED
DRUGS PRODUCTION
PROCESSES" ALL
IN QUESTION
In the evidence session Minister Hewitt made
the claim—without proof and there is ample evidence to the
contrary—that the Doha "Development" Round will
bring 300 million people out of poverty. Whether that was intended
to mean with the Singapore issues included or not was unclear.
Minister Hewitt continued to refer to the DDR
as a Development Round, when this has been quite generally rejected.
Any pretence that it was a Development Round was definitively
eradicated by the demands at Cancún. It is to be hoped
that there is not an attempt to use the crumbs of the TRIPS deal
to qualify it in this way; and it would be sad if the IDC was
prepared to accept the "development" tag.
The "trade capacity building" which
is now a main focus of the work of DFID, and was referred to by
Minister Benn, is also now being treated with a great deal of
suspicion in development circles.
The agreement on the TRIPS and access to generic
production of drugs has been vaunted as an enormous breakthrough,
including in the evidence session. However it is widely acknowledged
that, in real terms, the deal is so restrictive, it may actually
be of little benefit.
And though the response from both the Ministers
was obfuscated, the answer to the Committee's question about broadening
the availability of other drugs to generic production was actually,
no.
Minister Hewitt's reference to supporting country-owned
drug producing processes may be a reference to the potential marketing
of genetically modified crops to produce drugs, such as for HIV/AIDS.
(There are presently significant acreages of GM plants being developed
for this in Iowa). But should countries be forced to accept genetic
modification, despite not wanting it, through having to grow drugs
this way, because of the restrictive nature of the deal on generic
production?
AGRICULTURE, NOT
JUST OFF
TRACK, BUT
ON THE
WRONG TRACK
Agriculture was a major, perhaps the major focus,
both at Cancún and at the IDC session. Again, although
the June CAP reform has been hailed as a huge concession, including
by the Ministers in the meeting, it is not recognized as such
by developing countries, or by anyone who analyses what has actually
been proposed. It is quite easy to see that the EU has moved subsidies
to different boxes, but that they essentially remain.
Minister Benn said that poor countries "need
time to understand" and that they need CAP reform explained
further. It is sentiments such as these that are raising such
huge questions about the nature of the "trade capacity building"
being carried out not only by DFID, but also by the World Bank
and the WTO itself.
A genuine interest in development would involve
thinking outside the WTO box of how free trade in agriculture
can go forward to more liberalization, because the WTO Agriculture
Agreement does not address issues of food security. Only 10% of
agricultural produce is traded internationally, and that trade
is controlled by Multinational Corporations. For a committee concerned
with development, food security and food sovereignty should be
central. Via Campesina, representing many of the small farmers
of the world, are advocating the removal of Agriculture from the
WTO. It might be informative and appropriate to invite a speaker
from Via Campesina to address the Committee at some point.
UK FAILURE ON
GENDER ISSUES
It is likely that the Committee is unaware that
the major UK women's groups and women's networks of the UK, and
the gender sections of the major development organisations, had
asked for a gender representative to be included in the UK delegation
to Cancún. They had also asked for emergency meetings with
the DTI to affect the UK, and the EU, position, as well as gender
awareness training for DTI staff. The DTI failed to act on any
of this.
While the request for a gender representative
was not directly refused, letters from David Andrews at the DTI
stated that Dr Elaine Drage would be the gender representative.
However Dr Drage has shown herself to be unaware or antipathetic
to gender issues publicly, on several occasions, and women's groups
objected to her designation in this way.
This was then changed to Minister Hewitt herself
being the "gender representative". However, the Minister
has misled the audience of a women's conference on the facts of
trade liberalization (Globalisation and Gender conference at TUC,
May 2003). This would appear to negate her suitability to represent
anyone on gender and trade issues.
In the IDC evidence session, Minister Hewitt
was keen to mention the UK women Ministers who went to Cancún.
But, apart from Minister Hewitt's own flawed record, Margaret
Beckett for DEFRA maintains a pro-GM stance that puts her out
of step with the vast majority of UK women feeding families and
caring for their country. Baroness Amos attended Cancún
but has been moved from the Development Portfolio before having
had the opportunity to raise real development issues. Thus, against
the demands of a very broad representation of UK women, there
was in fact no gender perspective brought to bear within the UK
delegation.
And under these circumstances, it is disconcerting
to see Dr Drage advising the Minister on what to say, as at the
evidence session.
WHY THE
IDC SHOULD CONSIDER
GENDER
When most of the world's poor are women, when
they own such a small percentage of wealth, have control of such
a small percentage of land, suffer most from AIDS, and are so
little represented, then the general lack of attention to gender
factors in the work of the International Development Committee
is at least puzzling.
Covered by the GATT, the approximately one thousand
Export Processing Zones in the world run on the fact of women's
cheap labour; and the whole of world trade is underpinned by women's
unacknowledged and unpaid labour.
Women subsistence farmers are becoming poorer
through dumping (the result of subsidies) and from having their
subsistence land taken for export crops, from which they then
fail to benefit. Thus there is much in liberalised trade in Agriculture
which actually exacerbates gender disadvantage among the poorest,
as well as contributing to food insecurity.
It is also puzzling why the Committee does not
focus on the fact that UK ODA levels are so far below what was
promised. Because of gender roles and disadvantage, women should
be consulted and supported in ODA processes.
THE DANGERS
OF "POLICY
COHERENCE"
In the evidence session, the Committee raised
the issue of policy coherence. It should be noted that policy
coherence among DTI, DFID and DEFRA has resulted in these Departments
working to the same, unquestioned, free trade agenda, without
reference to gender, Human Rights, or Sustainable Development.
The DTI has admitted that it has never taken
account of Human Rights or gender.
DFID, in its work on agriculture, refers to
the fact that women produce 60-80% of the food in the developing
world (Better livelihoods for poor people: The role of Agriculture
DFID 2002), but then fails to make any reference to women
in any of its proposed solutions or proposed DFID actions on agriculture.
DEFRA only considers gender in its own employment
practices, not in its policy work; and the work of its Sustainable
Development Unit does not impinge on its role in international
trade—despite the role of DEFRA in leading the UK delegation
for the first 2 days at Cancún.
This is the nature of the policy coherence.
Thus it would appear that there is a need to
apply caution in the undifferentiated call for policy coherence,
because of the way it is being implemented across UK Government
Departments, and also across International Financial Institutions
and the WTO.
TRADE LIBERALIZATION
SHOULD NOT
BE PRIORITIZED
IN PRSP'S
Minister Benn's reference to WB/IMF financial
aid for the adjustment processes for developing countries as they
enter into agreements and reduce tariffs is a cause for concern,
as was his reference to having a trade focus in PRSP's. Poverty
reduction should not be subordinated to trade liberalisation as
promoted by rich country governments and their multinationals.
Again this raises questions about the trade capacity building
that's on offer.
MORE MINI
MINISTERIALS AND
"INFORMALS" ARE
A STEP
BACK IN
WTO TRANSPARENCY
On issues of WTO processes, it was worrying
to hear Minister Hewitt refer to holding more mini Ministerials
as a streamlining strategy for WTO processes. Mini Ministerials,
from which many states' are excluded, and which then produce,
under these undemocratic circumstances, documentation to be taken
forward, are a major reason why the WTO processes are not trusted
by developing countries. It seems that the substance of these
comments by Minister Hewitt can only exacerbate the problem.
And her reference to the "informal"
processes currently taking place, with all the potential for arm
twisting and corruption that these will undoubtedly entail, without
the benefits of the developing country solidarity seen at Cancún,
are a further concern.
COMBINING TRADE
WITH "WAR
ON TERROR"
IS OMINOUS
FOR STATES'
FOREIGN POLICY
Lastly, but very importantly, Minister Hewitt's
reference to the need to emphasise to the US the connection between
the so-called "war on terror" and good multilateral
trading relations is very ominous indeed. There is more and more
evidence of countries having their foreign policy dictated for
the sake of trade deals. The Minister's statement on this appeared
to be an attempt to make this seem acceptable, and to further
progress along these lines.
The UK Government should not be encouraging
a situation where countries are held to ransom on their foreign
policies as a condition for them to trade.
October 2003
| 
