 |
While
high-level negotiations have moved to forest, spa and island resorts,
and the repressive wake of reaction to the September 11, 2001
attack on the World Trade Centre appeared to marginalize popular
mobilization, the globe-girdling mobilization of citizen outrage
about the war on Iraq, February 15, 2003 demonstrates that public
resistance has surprising potential.
Trade negotiations are complex, secretive and have a highly technical
dimension. But they are essentially political, not technical,
affairs. Decisions are frequently made in negotiations which if
put to people by a political party in an election would lead to
far-reaching debate and on occasion outrage.
Democracy is diminished when decisions of this scope are made
in secret and presented as a fait-accompli with little opportunity
for debate, amendment or participation in decision.
Public knowledge, engagement and reaction to the current round
of trade, investment and service negotiations is building. Here
are some of the elements:
Transparency
In July, 2003, civil society organizations launched the Cancun
Democracy Challenge, questioning the lack of democratic practice
and basic transparency within the WTO itself. The decision-making
process of the organization should be radically reformed to encourage
informed, democratic decisions. www.focusweb.org/civil-society-call/
Environmental and many other organizations have campaigned for
transparency regarding documents and negotiations since the WTO
was founded in 1995.
Research
Stung by the negative effects of bilateral (FTA) and regional
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trade agreements,
Canadian trade unions joined with cultural, health, student, development
and environmental groups to form a research consortium –
the Trade and Investment Research Project (TIRP) – which
would serve all of them by monitoring and analyzing trade negotiations.
Each group must contribute some research. Together they sponsor
investigations which have resulted in several books and briefing
papers, elicited detailed responses from both the Trade Policy
Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) and the WTO itself. The results of TIRP’s research
serve the public education and advocacy work of its members, but
are quoted and referred to by interested organizations in many
countries and institutions.
Third World Network provides ongoing coverage of negotiations
in Geneva, books and issue papers. www.twnside.org.
Regional networks like the Southern and Eastern African Trade
Information and Negotiations Institute (SEATINI) issue regular
informative bulletins. www.seatini.org
Engagement with government officials &
parliaments
The World Development Movement (WDM) in the UK has been campaigning
on GATS since November 2000. WDM has engaged significant numbers
of members of parliament in both the UK and Scottish Parliaments.
They have pushed for parliamentary inquiries into the implications
of the GATS.
The campaigns in the UK led the Department of Trade and Industry
to tell business that their position on liberalization of services
was weak, and “was vulnerable when NGOs asked for proof
of where theecono-mic benefits of liberalization lay.”
OXFAM’s EU office has reminded the EU that when GATS was
launched a review of its impact on development was promised before
any new negotiation. The review has not happened. Thus OXFAM has
joined in a call for a moratorium until it takes place.
Public information and policy responses
The Social Watch network 2003 report The Poor and the Market,
focuses on essential services and the experience of privatization
in dozens of countries, a feast of case studies, www.socialwatch.org.
The Commonwealth, in its process of civil society engagement with
Commonwealth Finance Ministers, sponsored a multi-country event
in Brunei, considering the experience of privatization of water,
hydro electric and other services. African activists and academics
met in May in Accra, to confront the corporate scramble for Africa’s
water, and the role of the IFIs in compelling privatization. www.brettonwoodsproject.org
Mobilization
Utilizing occasions as large as the World Social Forum and as
modest as church hall meetings in small communities, activist
networks have enlarged the sectors and interest groups who have
been alerted to trade negotiations and the GATS. Public debates
in countries as diverse as Thailand and Mexico, the Philippines
and India are being organized. With the collaboration of regional
and national civil society, farm and labour groups in Mexico,
demonstrations and other public activities confront the WTO Ministerial
in Cancun.
The diverse reach of the GATS calls for an equally diverse mobilization
of groups that are or will be affected by the negotiations, whether
they be parents concerned with public daycare, poor communities
concerned with access to water and sanitation, or librarians concerned
for public access to information.
Consider an example: Why Water?
The GATS covers many items, many families of items. Not least
among them is water. As researcher Ellen Gould notes, “the
European Commission has taken the most aggressive position on
the liberalization of water services of any WTO member.”1
The EC comments “further liberalization of this sector would
offer new business opportunities to European companies, as the
expansion and acquisitions abroad by a number of European water
companies show.”2 Behind the EC drive are the ambitious
of French water giants Suez and Vivendi, the UK-German RWE-Thames
and others
“One vision, put forward by major corporations trying to
make a buck on water services, and their governmental allies,
is that water is a valuable commodity to be controlled by the
market. The other sees water as a basic human and environmental
right, to be protected by communities and people around the globe.”3
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on housing, Miloon Kothari
outlines what rights are threatened by water privatization:
-
With an emphasis on profits and cost recovery, rate increases
often ensue.
-
The World Bank and IMF urge “unbundling” of services,
so that profitable sectors go to the private sector and the
state and taxpayers are left with the unprofitable elements
like infrastructure, sewage treatment or services to poor settlements.
-
Privatization often leads to reduced access by the poor to basic
social services.
-
Privatization can reduce accountability and local control. Corporations
are accountable to their shareholders. Contracts are often made
behind closed doors.4
In
2000, in the streets of Cochabamba, Bolivia, fought for their
right to water at an affordable price and force their government
to rescind a privatization contract with a foreign corporation.5
Governments could be challenged over any provisions they make
which privilege domestic water service suppliers. Further, under
the GATS, conservation of national resources is not recognized
as a permissible reason for breaching the agreement.6
Popular response is developing to protect access to water as a
public resource. A global alliance of concern has taken form in
the Blue Planet project, aimed to protect the world’s water
as part of the global commons. www.blueplanetproject.net/english
Meanwhile in the United States, Public Citizen has initiated “Water
for All: Campaigning to keep water as a public trust.” www.citizen.org
Defending water as a global public good illustrates both the challenge
of the GATS and the potential for organizing international alliances
in the public interest.
1
Ellen Gould, “Water in the Current Round of WTO Negotiations
on Services”, Briefing Paper Series: Trade and Investment,
4:1, January, 2003, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Ottawa,
Canada.
2 European Commission, “Opening
World Markets for Services: A Guide to the GATS”,
3 Holly Wren Spaulding, “Busting the Water Cartel”
, Sand in the Wheels, 180, 02 July, 2003. Attac.
4 Miloon Kothari, “Privatising human rights – the
impact of globalization on adequate housing, water and sanitation.”,
Social Watch Report 2003, Montevideo, Social
Watch, 2003.
5 See Tom Kruse & Cecilia Ramos, “Water and privatization:
doubtful benefits, concrete threats.” In Social Watch
Report 2003, Montevideo, Social
Watch, 2003.
6 Gould, “Water…”
|
