Examination of Witness (Questions 540-548)
Ambassador Gail Mathurin
11 JULY 2008
Q540 Chairman: It is a lot, in fact
.Ambassador Mathurin: Not all of the
ACP countries are members.
Chairman: I have just realised that it is the purple
circle on this wonderful document that Monsieur Lamy gave us yesterday.
That looks to us about 50.
Q541 Lord Trimble: This is a slightly
more general question. We are hearing quite a bit these days because
of the rising food and oil prices, and we are hearing a lot more
about protection and we have had the comments from President Sarkozy
about some comments emerging from the US Presidential Campaign.
We wondered what the view of Jamaica and the ACP would be on the
prospect of protectionism or an increase in protectionism.
Ambassador Mathurin: I would not pretend
to speak on behalf of the ACP Group on this one and I am not sure
that what I will convey to you I would describe as a Jamaican
view. We are in a very difficult situation globally. The issue
of rising food prices is a major, major concern for us. May I
suggest this is why we are even more agitated about the banana
issue. What is being said to us is that at a time when we have
to find increased foreign exchange to buy food, exports could
be cut off dramatically. It is a major issue. CARICOM, my own
region, put it on its agenda some time last year. In fact, it
was even before it became an issue internationally because we
have been grappling with this for nearly a year and a half on
these rising food prices. The protectionist approach is a little
disturbing in the sense that many of us had to go back to the
drawing board on agriculture and look at ways in which we could
increase our agricultural production for food security purposes
and a variety of reasons, investment in agriculture had fallen
off, it was the sexy thing at the time, or whatever. We have now
had to go back to the drawing board. If protectionism is manifested
by subsidies then it is an issue of concern because we see better
opportunities for our farmers when subsidies go. At the same time,
the high prices also give our farmers an opportunity which they
may not have had before. It is a very complex situation but it
is an issue of major concern. In my own region we saw what happened
in Haiti: the food crisis removed a prime minister. Politically,
it is a very, very sensitive issue in my region. At the same time,
we would not want to see increased protectionist measures put
in place by other countries, although I have to say we are somewhat
sympathetic to those who have put export restrictions in place
because we realise that they, like us, are grappling with this
concept of food security and, of course, you are always going
to take care of your own population first. This phrase "food
security" was not in the lexicon maybe two years ago, but
it is now being discussed in a very serious way. If you look at
what are perceived as protectionist approaches in the context
of food security then I think one's views are a little more nuanced.
The natural instinct of governments is going to be to take care
of their own populations.
Chairman: It is very strange, is it not, I have
spent my adult life listening to talk of surplus, so food security
is a new concept for all of us.
Q542 Lord Moser: Just going back
to your remarks about what you diplomatically called the lack
of convergence that remains. If the worst comes to the worst and
there is not a breakthrough now and there is some kind of failure,
perhaps not total failure, how serious is it from an ACP and perhaps
Jamaican view in particular?
Ambassador Mathurin: There are going
to be mixed results. For some the status quo is not that damaging,
quite frankly. At the same time, we recognise there are certain
proposals on the table that have the potential, particularly in
agriculture, to reform the world agricultural system which will
bring benefits to many of us in the developing world, particularly
the `A' part of the ACP group. If we miss this opportunity to
take a decision, particularly on the subsidy issue, we do not
know when next we will be able to take it again. I think it is
a mixed picture. There is an element which, interestingly enough,
never gets discussed very often and that is the resources. What
we have seen during the Doha Round is increased participation
of developing countries, particularly developing countries like
my own, members of the ACP Group, but there has been a cost.
Q543 Lord Moser: I do not quite follow
that point.
Ambassador Mathurin: The point I am making
is it has cost our governments to participate actively in the
Doha Round. There has been a cost in terms of maintaining delegations
here, preparing the expertise we have had to pull on and so forth.
It would be a shame if that kind of investment was just thrown
out of the window through no fault of our own because we are not
going to make or break the Round, and that is clear to us. There
are some major decisions to be made by some major players, which
we are not, but there could be some fallout for us. It is a mixed
picture.
Q544 Lord Moser: And for the WTO
if the Round fails?
Ambassador Mathurin: That is a debate
that everybody has been having. There could be some reason to
go back to the drawing board if it fails from the WTO perspective.
Maybe we should start asking ourselves the question, given the
expanding membership of the WTO, can we, in fact, have these large
global Rounds? I do not know, I do not have an answer. If it fails
perhaps we need to go back to the drawing board, yet what do we
do with all the work we have done so far. It is not just the ACP
Group, it is the whole WTO community. The direction in which some
of the proposals are going would bring benefits. One would not
want to see that thrown away as well. Yes, the WTO will lose something
if there is failure, but is that the WTO's fault? The WTO is made
up by its members and it is its members who would agree or not.
I am not sure one can blame it on the institution per se. It is
an ongoing debate and I am not sure I can come down one way or
the other on it.
Q545 Chairman: It is a fascinating
subject, Ambassador. I have probably got time for a two-part question.
If this Round fails, do you think the dispute settlement system
remains legitimate in the absence of continuing liberalisation?
Say the Round just simply fails and everybody decides to go home,
does that leave the dispute settlement system intact from your
point of view?
Ambassador Mathurin: From a legal point
of view it will leave the dispute settlement mechanism intact,
but, as I was suggesting in my earlier discussion, if you do not
have a political side to the WTO and leave it just to dispute
settlement then I would not be surprised if many smaller countries
start to question whether you can deal with trade issues totally
by legal or quasi-legal rulings. Again, I am not sure I can come
down on one side or the other.
Q546 Chairman: It is to illuminate
only.
Ambassador Mathurin: I think that the
political role or the political function of the WTO is a very
important one. If you only have the dispute settlement mechanism,
while all of us say we want a rules-based system, at the same
time a rules-based system that frankly does not take account of
the social and economic impact of its rulings is going to be questioned
half the time.
Q547 Chairman: Without the political
legitimacy that goes with it, it does not stand.
Ambassador Mathurin: Precisely.
Q548 Chairman: As a final ask to
look into the future, if this Round fails do you see a use for
the WTO? What can it do next?
Ambassador Mathurin: I had noted the
question on the list and I must admit I do not have an answer.
I think we will all have to go back to the drawing board. The
international community collectively will all have to go back
to the drawing board. Perhaps we have to be more nuanced in our
rule making. We are beginning to see it. Let me just give you
an example: for the first time the WTO is able to craft rules
which are applied to a category of country called small and vulnerable
economies and it is an important step forward. I think we are
probably going to have to be far more nuanced in our rule making
if we are going to continue with a multilateral trading rules-based
system.
Chairman: Thank you very much. A very useful
answer. I am sorry we have to rush, but it was very good of you
to see us. We have not heard an enormous amount from the ACP countries
and it has been very useful. Thank you very much.
| 
