The low down

Date: 3 December 2013

The WTO has languished for 12 years, unable to push forward its agenda of trade liberalisation in the face of opposition from Southern governments and global organising by social movements, trade unions and campaign groups.

This isn’t to say trade liberalisation hasn’t proceeded apace – in the form of regional and bilateral agreements. But the leadership and legitimacy that has come from a global trade body has been missing – a problem for those who’d like to push forward.
 
Hence this summit, with and admittedly  limited agenda, is symbolically important. It has been dramatically called a ‘make or break’ meeting. It comes amid critical negotiating on several multinational trade agreements: the US-EU deal, the trans-pacific partnership and a ‘trade in services’ agreement. All three represent a frightening advance in corporate power over the world. A WTO deal would be the icing on the cake.

 

There are three main issues being discussed. First ‘trade facilitation’ – which means reducing restrictions on customs procedures at borders. This is being pushed by rich countries but opposed by others who don’t want to be sued for not implementing a set of policies which have taken the West decades to develop. A ludicrous estimate – reported pretty much everywhere – says that speeding up customs would add $1trillion a year to the global economy.
 
More important is the intense debate over agriculture, which sees countries in the G33 group, most vocally India, arguing that they want to change WTO rules to better enable them to protect food so that they can reduce hunger and control their food sector.
 
India is strongly supported by a number of Latin American countries, and firmly opposed by the US and the rich block – pretty cheeky given those same countries spend far far more than India subsidising their own food production. Indeed it’s incredible that we reached a staged where it can seem controversial for a country to control and develop its own food system, in a democratic manner, for its own consumption. Opponents agree that food security is important, but argue it can’t trump the need to iron out trade distortions. 
 
Finally there is a package which aims to give the poorest countries better access to markets elsewhere. Although not as strong as originally drafted, it’s generally positive, but there’s a concern that rather than just being approved it will be used as a political football.